The Political Sausage: American Healthcare Legislation

Two weeks ago, the House of Representatives passed a bill, The American Healthcare Act, to repeal and replace Obamacare. A bill to achieve the same result, The Better Care Reconciliation Act, has been introduced to the Senate. The Republicans have a 52-48 majority in the Senate and their whipping abilities is strong, thus you might assume the Obama healthcare laws are dead in the water. That would be a huge mistake.

Debate was due to place in the Senate next week but Mitch McConnell, the Republican Majority Leader, has a mutiny on his hands. At least five senators have voiced their objections to the new law so McConnell delayed a vote until after the 4^th July recess, by which time sufficient inducements to rebellious senators will have been made, as well as changes to the bill, which President Trump has described as “mean” and “lacking heart.” Currently, McConnell is revising his Act, once again in closed session. The vast majority of Senators have no idea of the likely changes. So much for democracy.

Why are there two separate bills in Congress to cover the same legislative aspiration? For those who are familiar with the British system of government, the American process will indeed seem odd, as there are multiple differences. For example, in Britain once a Bill has been approved by the House of Commons and the House of Lords, it goes to the Queen for “the royal assent.” The last monarch to refuse consent was Queen Anne who showed ‘thumbs down’ in 1707. In America, once Congress has approved a Bill, the President has a right of veto. The veto rules are complex. In short, the President has 10 days to decide to approve the legislation or get out his veto stamp. In the latter case, Congress has the right to overrule the veto with a two thirds majority in both the House of Representatives and the Senate.

In Britain, a bill can be introduced in either the House of Commons or the House of Lords. For the purposes of this blog, let’s accept a Bill starts in the Commons. The Introduction and First Reading is purely formal. The Second Reading is the big debate about the principles of the Bill, after which it goes to Committee, where the Bill is considered line by line. Then the Bill is returned to the Commons, effectively for the same exercise to be repeated, so all Members of Parliament have an opportunity to propose amendments. Once approved by the Commons, the Bill is given a Third Reading, usually a short debate to decide if the Bill passes. If it does, the Bill goes to the Lords, our second chamber.

The approval process in the Lords is the same, except that in the Lords the Committee Stage takes place on the floor of the House and any peer can take part. Also peers may move amendments on Third Reading. If the Lords approve, the Bill goes for Royal Assent. However, if amendments are made by the Lords, the amended Bill goes back to the Commons for consideration where Lords’ amendments may be accepted, rejected or re-amended. The Bill is then returned to the Lords for consideration of any amendments not accepted. This "ping pong" can continue forever, or at least until the end of the Parliamentary session when the Bill is deemed lost. There is no tie breaker, so if the two Houses cannot agree, the Bill will not be forwarded for Royal Assent. That said, in practice, the ping pong game is usually resolved swiftly through political channels. Either an acceptable compromise amendment is negotiated and agreed or the Lords backs down, having twisted the Commons' tail. The Commons is an elected body, the Lords is not.

The American process bears little resemblance to the British process. More than 20,000 Bills are proposed in Congress each year but few survive. The process might seem straightforward but, like ours, it has great complexity and it is both very fragmented and slow. Bills can be introduced in either the House of Representatives or the Senate or both at the same time. However, the Bill introduced in the House can be quite different to that introduced in the Senate and vice versa. In each House of Congress, the Bill is sent to a Standing Committee and then farmed out to any given numbers of sub-committees. The Bill may be amended or rejected outright by the Committee and, additionally, the Committee can fail to “report it out” i.e. do nothing, in which event it is lost. The vast majority of Bills die in Committee.

If the Bill survives Committee in both the House and Senate, it is reported to each House’s Rules Committee which sets a time table for progress. It then goes to the floor of each House. In the House of Representatives, a Bill needs a simple majority to pass. The rules in the Senate are similar but the opposition has a right of filibuster, i.e. talking the Bill out of time. A cloture motion to defeat a filibuster require a 60% majority vote.

Assuming the Bill is approved on both floors, it passes to a Conference Committee, which contains members of both House and Senate. There is a new Conference Committee for every Bill and its members are appointed by the Chairs of the relevant Standing Committees. Its role is to make the two versions of the Bill into one. Assuming this is achieved, the Bill then goes back to the floors of each House for the final vote. No amendments or additions are allowed. If the Bill is defeated, it dies. If not, it goes to the President for signature, when his veto powers and the override rights of Congress apply as mentioned above.

There is room for the multitude of American Interest Groups to intervene at each stage of the process. The Interest group’s role is crucial. The National Riflemen’s Association is heard loud and clear if any legislation is proposed limiting rights of gun owners. The usual threat is to fund a challenge to a sitting legislator at the next election. In 1986, Congress debated changes to social security benefits. Senior citizens did not like the proposed new laws eroding benefits and groups including the Grey Panthers protested vociferously. The Congress switchboard was jammed for weeks, there was a deluge of mail, and it was made clear to Congressmen and Senators that they would lose votes by the bucket-load if they went ahead. Social security benefits were left untouched.

The prime motivation of a Congressman, who has to stand for election every two years, is to survive. In an election year, he is more likely to do what his voters want, rather than his Party. A President can lose support from members of his own party if the stakes are high enough.  Party ties are much weaker than in the British Parliament. This is another reason why the President does not get what he asks for all the time. Although a Senator has a six-year tenure, he or she will know what his voters want on every major issue.

I have not analysed the differences between the House and Senate healthcare bills. I do not have the intestinal fortitude to wade through the dense legislative Americanese. Also, the final bill, if it reaches that stage, will be different. What is important now is the scoring of The Congressional Budget Office, an independent body. In each case, they estimate that by 2026, more than 22 million Americans will lose healthcare insurance. It may well be a much bigger number. Legislators will be thinking about the possible effect on next year’s mid-term elections.

Republicans supporters and legislators are divided. Some believe the new laws go much too far to deprive ordinary Americans of benefits and put America’s health back to the pre-2010 dark ages. Others say the new laws don’t go far enough. These are the ones who believe it is right to make tax savings for the rich and super-rich, at the expense of the middle classes who will find healthcare insurance unaffordable. This is wealth-care, not healthcare.

Yesterday, the President announced to White House reporters, “Healthcare is working along very well. . . . We're going to have a big surprise. We have a great health-care package.” He offered no details, only reiterating, “We're going to have a great, great surprise.” Why must this President conduct the affairs of state as if it were a TV show? Healthcare is serious business, not a guessing game.

If Congress passes healthcare legislation, you may be assured of two things. First, President Trump will be front and centre, declaring he kept his election campaign promise to repeal and reform Obamacare but he will stand mute on the other limb of his promise “to replace it with something less expensive and better.” So, I say thank heavens for the British National Health Service. Second, I am reminded of the saying: “there are two things you never want to see made, a political deal and a sausage.”

The Katrina Moment

In the summer of 2005, New Orleans was devastated by hurricane Katrina. A state of emergency was declared. The whole city was flooded. The Louisiana Superdrome and the Houston Astrodome went from emergency evacuation and relief centres to major crime scenes. Tens of thousands of people were evacuated, never to return

The event was a major disaster. Failures of governance were abundant. Before the event, environmentalists and flood engineers had advised the city fathers that New Orleans was vulnerable. Indeed, The Sunday Times Magazine published an article a while before Katrina, forecasting exactly what occurred. The cost of protecting New Orleans would have been in the billions of dollars but the city, state and federal governments could not agree how such cost would be shared. After Katrina, those governments were severely criticised for the delayed response to the flooding, for mismanagement and lack of leadership at all levels.

However, the political error of errors belonged to President George W Bush. He cut his vacation in Texas short, although he had already spent 27 days in his Crawford ranch. He flew back to D. C. while having Air Force One fly over some of the devastated areas of Louisiana. He glimpsed the wreckage of New Orleans only from his plane. Subsequently, the American public regarded Bush as uncaring and distant from obvious abject misery below him.  An anonymous former Bush adviser and strategist later commented that Bush never recovered from Katrina. He was seen for the remainder of his Presidency as a man who had no understanding of true leadership.

Last week, Guardian columnist Jeremy Freedland wrote about British Prime Minister May's "Katrina Moment." The disastrous fire at Grenfell Tower in London's Notting Hill took 79 lives and left the surviving residents homeless and destitute. The next day, May briefly visited the site and spoke with members of the fire department, health service and police. She ignored the residents. Just ten minutes of her time would have been sufficient for her to show she cared and was aware of their plight. Her PR people subsequently stated there were security problems. Bushwah!

May rectified her error later in the week but she was so clearly uncomfortable in the company of poor, disadvantaged people. Her reputation for arrogant aloofness and lack of empathy is now set in stone. Until her Party lost its majority in the recent General Election, she behaved with her political colleagues and Parliament as if she was Louis XIV, "l'etat, c'est moi". I suspect she will not remain Prime Minister for much longer. But she is the author of her own misfortune.

And so it continues. Is President Trump about to have his Katrina moment? The House of Representatives has passed an American Healthcare Bill. Subsequently it was scored by the Congressional Budget Office who anticipate that between 20 and 28 million Americans will lose their healthcare insurance over the next six years. The Senate will soon vote on its version of the Bill. It has major differences to the House's Bill but Medicare is under attack, as is the funding of Planned Parenthood, and the numbers who will lose their insurance or be rejected on grounds of pre-existing conditions seems to be similar to the House version.

Trump has said the new Healthcare laws will be better for Americans. This is true if you apply his comments to the wealthy who neither need nor use Obamacare insurance. I wonder if Trump himself even has health insurance. If he needs medical help, he can pay for it from his petty cash box. Trump seems intent on passing any new healthcare legislation put forward by Congress just so he can boast that he has kept an election promise to repeal and replace Obamacare.

The major part of the brief for a political chief executive, whether President or Prime Minister, is crisis management. In the days of 24/7 media, this means being visible.  FDR had problems because he was not mobile. Instead, his wife, Eleanor, got despatched to crisis scenes. In some years she travelled 50,000 miles around America and was fearless, whether visiting coal miners in Pennsylvania or disadvantaged blacks in the Deep South. FDR called her, “my eyes and ears.” Since FDR, all Presidents have got to understand the importance of PR, although in Bush Jr’s case, it came too late.

Cannot any member of Trump’s coterie, the American media he listens to, someone he might hear, maybe the First Lady, tell him that acceptance of any old healthcare legislation is not leadership, it is caving in? Since I have already referred to the words of French royalty, perhaps the words of Marie Antoinette are the most appropriate to Trump’s attitude: “let them eat cake.” But only if you’re rich enough to afford the healthcare a sugar diet may give you. And we know what happened to Marie Antoinette!

 

 

Never Mind Russia. What About US Interference in UK Election?

 

In the winter of 1992, the American political media concentrated its focus on the Democratic Party’s New Hampshire primary. Shortly before the vote, Bill Clinton was ahead of the field but Gennifer Flowers dropped a bombshell, telling the American public of her extramarital affair with Bill. Suddenly, Clinton trailed badly in the polls. He was a dead duck. On election night, Paul Tsongas won the primary but the story the next day, published in all newspapers and broadcast on all news channels up and down the States, was how Clinton was the winner, despite coming second. Clinton named himself, “The Comeback Kid” and left New Hampshire with momentum for the remaining primaries.

Last week, the results of our General Election put the Conservatives miles ahead of their opponents. Of the 650 House of Commons seats, they won 317. Their nearest rivals, Labour, could only manage 262 seats. Minority parties accounted for the other 71 seats. The problem for the Conservatives is that they fell 8 seats short of a working majority needed in the House of Commons. The British media collectively reported the outcome as a loss for Prime Minister Theresa May and a win for Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, whose Party had started the campaign 20 points behind the Tories.

I do not understand how anyone in the media can report the election outcome as a loss for the Conservatives. If the latter cannot form a coalition, they will rule as a minority government but they didn’t lose the election. The loser was Prime Minister May. Calling an election when it was not needed, losing the majority in the House of Commons and a huge lead her Party held in the Polls was grounds enough for resignation. So was the campaign she ran. It was highly personalized and replete with empty slogans. On every appearance, in every speech and at every interview, we were told about the “strong and stable government” over which she would preside. At least we were not told, “Let’s Make Britain Great Again.”

On this side of The Pond, we seem to have adopted numerous American ways of reporting political news, using American methods and terminology. One American approach is to personalize the struggle between nominees for the Presidency. Trump versus Clinton will remain in my memory bank for eons. For the past seven weeks, our media reported on May versus Corbyn as if they were the only personalities worth talking about, unless another politician made a huge gaffe. This was selling the electorate short.

We do not have a Presidential system of government. Ours is Parliamentary and the Prime Minister is merely “primus inter pares”, first among equals. When we vote in a General Election, our choice is a member of Parliament. We do not vote for a Prime Minister. Yet our television news daily concentrated on the leaders as if they were Presidential material, almost to the exclusion of everyone else. True, they also reported on policy proposals but mainly to criticize Manifesto promises. Interviewers would ask politicians for precise details and numbers when no individual would be likely to have this kind of detail for instant recall.

As for terminology, I resent listening to a politician refer to an opponent as someone who needs to “step up to the plate.” I have been to many baseball games and understand the true meaning of this expression but I suspect I am in a minority here in UK. Why do we need to use an American analogy when we have our own? We play cricket, not baseball. Why can’t our politicians call for their opposite number “to take his/her stance at the crease?” This is the place where a batsman stands when awaiting a bowler to deliver.

Our political masters probably do not understand it when they say, “Caught behind the 8 ball.” Over here, they are “snookered.” And as for the awful expression that has become the politicians’ prayer, “we must make sure”, this import from President Obama has become used by all and sundry. I wouldn’t mind but our politicians do not make sure. If they did, we wouldn’t have one calamity after another.

My point is the political systems in America and UK are poles apart. We do not have separation of powers like America. In UK, the House of Lords (the Legislature) has limited powers. The House of Commons (the important part of the Legislature) is supreme but it is heavily influenced by the Prime Minister and Cabinet (the Executive) most of whom sit in the House of Commons. Hence, to report about our politics as if we were a carbon copy of the American system is lazy, ineffectual, laughable and downright wrong. Let’s demand of the UK media that it concentrate on Party policy as much as Leader quality. Let’s end the habit of interviewers barking questions without waiting for answers. Let’s stop the unjustifiable mockery of individual politicians who campaign under enormous pressure and who occasionally misspeak.

When the Conservatives lost the 1997 election to Labour, John Major, the Tory leader, gave a dignified acceptance speech in which he referred to politics as a “rough old trade.” He was right. Politics is a trade, not a profession and those who practice it should be honest about it. Likewise, it is high time many British journalists realize they are not God Almighty and they have greater responsibilities than finding a scoop which will just cause embarrassment or mislead the public about political issues.

 

 

American lawyers must love Donald Trump. He must be one of the most litigious figures in American history. And the saga continues. Attorneys General for The District of Columbia and the State of Maryland have sued The Donald, alleging he has breached the anti-corruption clauses in the Constitution by accepting money and benefits from foreign governments after he became President. There is a separate suit by 190 Democratic legislators on similar lines.

The lawsuits are virgin territory because it is the first time government entities and legislators have brought such an action. Trump’s slim defence is that his business assets are in a trust managed by his sons. The question is whether a federal judge will permit the case to proceed. The claimants seek an injunction forcing Trump to end Constitution violations, leaving it to the Courts to decide how this should be done. I suspect the Courts will not hear the cases, leaving it to Congress to decide what to do about the issue. The choices: do nothing, issuing a censure with or without conditions or impeach. As ever with Mr. Trump, watch this space.

 

 

View Photos

 

The American Royal Prerogative

The American Royal Prerogative

This Blog has a lot of law in it, hence it is pretty sluggish. But, please bear with me. It might reward the reader…and then again it might not.

I am an admirer of the American Constitution, although The Bill of Rights has its issues. Did the Founders really intend Americans to have the right to possess and fire all kinds of weaponry? I have often posed the question, what is to prevent me from driving down Fifth Avenue in a Centurion Tank? I suspect I would be in breach of all kinds of ordinances but not, it seems, the Second Amendment!

My admiration stems from brilliance in the way that Articles I, II and III of the Constitution restrict the three branches of government imposing on the others, the ‘checks and balances.’ The Legislature is bi-cameral and the House and Senate have wide and equal legislative powers, as well as oversight of the Executive. The President, as chief executive, too, has wide powers but is constrained by the Senate in many respects, for example appointments of cabinet members and ambassadors. However, the President can block legislation through use of a veto. The Judiciary has extensive powers through judicial review of Acts of Congress, in its role of the ultimate arbiter of what is constitutional. Thus no one branch of the American government can out-power the other. Or so I thought until last week.

When President Trump announced he was removing America from the Paris Accords, I assumed there would be something in the Constitution either to stop him or give him a fight. However, Congress has no oversight power, nor can the Courts restrain the breaking of a treaty. Further research led me to an interesting discovery. America joined the Paris Accords through Executive Agreement, signed by President Obama. The accords are not treaties, thus Senate approval was not required. Likewise, the Senate cannot demand the right to approve the breaking of a treaty, especially when, in legal terms, a treaty does not exist.

The President enjoys plenary powers. In the UK, we call this right the Royal Prerogative, a restricted power recognized in common law under which the British Prime Minister may exercise some parliamentary powers. Interestingly, Royal Prerogative powers were was last examined just a few weeks ago by our Supreme Court when it told Mrs May that she could not trigger notice under Article 50 of the Treaty of Rome (Brexit) without first gaining parliamentary approval.

In United States constitutional law, plenary power is granted to a body or person in absolute terms, without review or limitation and is not subject to judicial review. I have found few examples, mainly because the Constitution grants different, and occasionally overlapping, roles to the three branches of federal government. For example, the President cannot declare war without Congressional authority but the President is commander-in-chief of the armed forces. Under Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 (the Commerce Clause) Congress exercises plenary power over interstate commerce but the states are not precluded from passing interstate commerce laws.

During the New Deal, the executive branch wanted to provide electricity to seven states in the Tennessee Valley. To do this, the Tennessee valley had to be flooded with the loss of many homes. Using plenary powers, Congress created the Tennessee Valley Authority as a Federal Corporation. Congress effectively granted plenary power to TVA to set the price for electricity and charge customers, who had no right of review by state or federal government.

The President has few plenary powers in domestic terms but the right to grant reprieves and pardons is one and it is his alone. Sometimes the use of this power causes astonishment.  Gerald Ford reprieved Richard Nixon and George Bush (41) pardoned Caspar Weinberger, both to the surprise of the general public. Another area where plenary power is exercised is Immigration. Under the Plenary Power Doctrine, Congress, not the President, has power to make immigration policy and the Executive Branch is charged with enforcing the immigration laws passed by Congress. The Doctrine is based on national sovereignty, hence the Courts will rarely interfere in immigration matters. No wonder Mr Trump was shocked when the Courts threw out his executive orders on Muslims travelling to America.

Regarding the Paris Accords, since the President has plenary power over foreign affairs, he cannot be prevented from ordering America’s withdrawal. Congress and the Courts are powerless, even if the reasons given by the President are flawed. For example, Mr Trump claimed:

 

            “The green fund would likely obligate the United States to commit potentially tens of billions of dollars …Nobody else is close. Most of them haven’t paid anything, including funds raided out of America’s budget for the war against terrorism.”

 

Trump is wrong when he says other countries have not contributed to the Green Climate Fund. 43 governments have pledged to pay $10.3bn collectively, of which the US share is $3bn. He was also in error when he said, “Calls were made on developed countries to send $100bn to developing countries.” Actually, the sum is $10bn.

 

Trump alleged that under the Accords, China would be able to increase emissions by a staggering number for the next 13 years. China, a major polluting nation, has pledged exactly the reverse. So, is Trump alleging that China has lied and is going to continue to lie for 13 years? If so, he should say so, not hide behind a sloppy and wrong interpretation of the Accords: in short, Trump is lying.

 

Finally, Trump’s nose should grow like Pinocchio’s for saying in his Accords speech, “As someone who cares deeply about the environment…” If this was true, why is he seeking to revive America’s coal industry? I am waiting for the claims that what will be produced is clean coal. There is no such thing as clean coal. And why is Trump deregulating industry and reversing the Obama administration’s protective environmental laws? Simple. It’s not so much the jobs but profit. He likes to help industrialists and fellow businessmen. Never mind global warming and air quality.

 

No doubt, Trump expected a bump in the polls. Yet, according to The Washington Post, only 28% of those polled approved the withdrawal from the Accords, whereas 47% disapproved and 25% said they did not know. Many State governors, city mayors, and American business leaders have since announced they and their states and cities will observe the Accords and former Mayor Bloomberg of New York says he will personally pay America’s $15 million commitment to the UN Climate Secretariat so it can continue its work. I would like to think that Trump will be shamed by Bloomberg’s generosity. Well, that ship probably sailed!

 

 

On Thursday, former FBI director, James Comey, gave evidence to the Senate Intelligence Committee. Whilst presently Comey’s evidence did not disclose a “smoking gun” against the President, it raised huge credibility issues. Trump is an acknowledged and habitual liar. However, when Comey was asked why he wrote Memos documenting his meetings with Trump, he said, “I was honestly concerned he [Trump] might lie about the nature of the meetings so I thought it important to document them.” I have trouble with this explanation. Had Comey said he was following FBI standard practice, the explanation would have been credible. Exculpatory statements putting another in a bad light reflect on the person seeking to be excused. May I politely remind those who would see Trump impeached, the end game requires 67 Senate votes to convict. Unless and until the American public gets behind an impeachment process, the Senate votes won’t be there.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A Letter to the President

Dear Mr Trump,

The victims of a terrorist attack suffer death or serious injury. In the latter case, the injuries are not physical alone. Apart from the best medical attention, those injured need moral support, not just from family and friends but the wider community. Following the Manchester outrage three weeks ago, my country has come together, helped in no small part by a 23 year-old American, Ariana Grande, who, last night, hosted a speedily arranged benefit concert for 50,000 in the auditorium with a television audience in UK exceeding 15 million.

Ms Grande persuaded many Americans to join her on stage. It was an act of solidarity. Much credit goes to this young person for pulling things together to support the Manchester victims both emotionally and financially.

Sadly, on Saturday night at London Bridge and Borough Market, just outside the City of London, three terrorists murdered 7 people and maimed another 48, some very seriously. Messages of solidarity were received from all world leaders…..except you. Your offering was to tweet a criticism of London’s Mayor, Sadiq Khan, for suggesting we Londoners remain calm: ‘At least 7 dead and 48 wounded in terror attack and Mayor of London says there is "no reason to be alarmed!"At least 7 dead and 48 wounded in terror attack and Mayor of London says there is "no reason to be alarmed!"At least 7 dead and 48 wounded in terror attack and Mayor of London says there is "no reason to be alarmed!"At least 7 dead and 48 wounded in terror attack and Mayor of London says there is no reason to be alarmed!’

You don’t read much do you, Mr. President? You quoted out of context. The Mayor added the words, “if you see armed police on the street.” The Mayor was too busy to give your tweet the broadside it deserved so I will do it for him.

Once again, you have demeaned your office and demonstrated your inability to do what is right. You made a fool of yourself by politicising an attack abroad to support your farcical crusade against Muslims in USA. In view of the office you hold, I would prefer to remain respectful but too many times you have turned that great office into a play-pen for oafs.

So, with apologies to my many American friends and readers who I would not want to upset, Mr President, I say to you, keep your big mouth shut and let the grown-ups deal with these incredibly difficult events. Clearly, you are unfit for this purpose.

Sincerely and with no respect, John Matlin.

 

What Price NATO, G7, The Paris Accords and the President's Brain?

I claim no expertise on American foreign policy. Mind you, I often wonder whether American leaders over the years understand foreign policy. For example, Eisenhower embarked on the Vietnam disaster, firmly believing in the Domino theory and that the world would face Communist hegemony if a stand was not made. JFK followed the lead, LBJ’s presidency was sunk by Vietnam and even Nixon could not bring a satisfactory ending. Under Gerald Ford, the USA made an ignominious exit. More than twenty years of fighting and loss of American lives was for nothing. The Americans had refused to recognise that, following the artificial partition of Vietnam in 1946, the Vietnamese were fighting a civil war.

Since Vietnam, America’s foreign policy errors litter the landscape. After Iraq invaded Kuwait, President Bush (41) put together a coalition and gave Saddam Hussein a bloody lesson but Bush stopped at the Iranian border. It was an honourable move because the United Nations mandate was limited to a removal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait but America and its allies lost an opportunity to remove a dictator and help negotiate a new regime. The second Iraq War after 9/11 was fought by USA with a restricted coalition and no plan for a post-war Iraq. The War on Terror is no longer fought or even discussed.

The USA has a history of supporting dictators like Diem, Duvalier and Noriega and totalitarian regimes like Panama, Guatemala, Ethiopia and Saudi Arabia, merely because they were opposed to communism. Never mind human rights. It has even supported terrorist groups, re-defined as freedom fighters, like the Contras in Nicaragua, all in the name of anti-communism. The overall track record of the executive branch and the State Department on foreign affairs is spectacularly awful.

Despite the above, much of the time in its history, America has been isolationist. Occasionally, Presidents like Wilson changed tack but even Franklin Roosevelt did not want to engage with other nations, except China, until the late 1930s. Since the end of World War II, America’s role has changed dramatically. As the world’s policeman, it cannot be isolationist. Now we have Mr Trump who seems hell-bent on resuming isolationism. He does not want to accept he lives in a global world. Trading agreements will suffice for him if they comply with America First.

It is bad enough that Mr Trump hinted at the recent G7 meeting that he will formally withdraw America from the Paris Climate Accords. Yesterday, he announced that America would withdraw. Trump’s Executive Orders changing environment protection rules in the name of profit will affect Americans adversely, unless they are making money from oil exploration or coal mining. To withdraw from an international agreement and sit with the only two Accord refusnik nations, Syria and Nicaragua, might fulfil a campaign promise but international reaction will put America in the dock.

There may be help at hand. I had hoped that Senate approval would be required for breaking a treaty as well as making on but this does not seem to be the case. However, I can’t believe the American courts will not get involved and stay any anti-environment executive order pending hearings.

In the campaign, Trump threatened a withdrawal from NATO, which provides a unique link between the two continents, enabling them to consult and cooperate in the field of defence and security, as well as multinational crisis-management operations. The United States is its most important member in an alliance of countries from Europe and North America. However, USA is the largest contributor to NATO funding and this has got Trump’s attention as he focuses the cross hairs of his political firearm on the organization.

NATO was formed in 1949 with 12 members. Since then, membership has increased to 28 nations. Article 5 of the Washington Treaty (as it is known) provides: “The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all….” If nothing else, the Treaty has acted as a brake on Russia and, until the 1990s, the Warsaw Pact countries. Had Ukraine been a member of NATO, it is unlikely that the 2014 Russia invasion of Crimea would have occurred.

I was five years old when the Washington Treaty was signed. Since I became politically aware, I have regarded NATO as an umbrella, protecting us Brits in the event of military action from our enemies. I concluded that our nuclear arsenal, including the expensive Trident programme, was not simply a deterrent to Russia and other nations who would attack us but also as our contribution to NATO, which gives us an influential seat at both NATO’s table and the United Nations.

So, why my concern?  I hope I am wrong but I see America possibly making another huge foreign policy error in its dealings with NATO. Based on campaign promises, President Trump has made it clear he wants NATO allies to pay their fair share of the costs. He has approached the issue on business lines, effectively telling his partners they owe specific amounts and not to expect America to cover the costs. In principle, the American argument seems reasonable. If you want to be a member of a club, you must pay your dues.

However, Trump’s “America First” policy means that paying a fair share of costs outweighs the value of the pact of mutuality in the NATO alliance. America has got it badly wrong. What President Trump and his advisers neither understand nor accept is that international diplomacy is more than mere business. It is nuanced and complex and friendly nations in an alliance will not respond well to brash demands from other nation partners.

NATO funding is two-fold. There is direct funding for military-related operations, maintenance and headquarters activity, based on each country’s gross national income. The 2016 NATO budget amounted to $2.85bn. As America has the largest economy of members, it pays the highest share, approximately 22%. Germany is second, with about 15%. The share of the military budget is negotiated annually, thus Trump has no historical grounds of complaint.

Trump has been throwing his weight about on America’s share of NATO’s indirect funding which is spent on operations where the collective obligation under Article 5 does not apply. Since 2006, each NATO member has had a guideline of spending at least 2% gross domestic product on indirect funding. Following Russian aggression in Ukraine, NATO members pledged to meet the guideline within ten years. Currently, five of the 28 NATO members exceed the guideline. USA leads at 3.6%. Greece, Estonia, Britain and Poland are the other four. The remaining NATO nations have increased their indirect defense spending but not to the 2% level. But the ten year deadline, which is not legally binding, is eight years away.

Trump has made several misleading tweets and statements. On 30^th May, he tweeted: “They (Germany) pay FAR LESS than they should on NATO & military. Very bad for U.S. This will change.” Five days earlier, he addressed NATO members: “This is not fair to the people and taxpayers of the United States. And many of these nations owe massive amounts of money from past years and not paying in those past years.” Trump’s argument doesn’t hold water. The money he talks about is the sum each country would spend on its own military or on missions that do not include NATO, such as peacekeeping in Africa. I believe Trump knows this full well but it doesn’t suit his case.

According to The Washington Post, defence experts say it is impossible to calculate how much of U.S. military spending is devoted just to NATO but for decades, U.S. presidents have concluded, quite correctly, that the U.S. commitment to the defence of NATO was an essential part of overall U.S. security. Trump is simply wrong on direct funding and is imprecise and out of date on indirect funding. Now he is President, he can order briefings on any subject. One would expect that he’s had more than one briefing on NATO funding, especially before his recent trip to NATO headquarters, but he continues to mislead the American public.

Amid the harangue on NATO, Mr Trump attacked Germany’s economic policy as well as its refusal to be an effective full member of NATO. It is troubling that the Trump administration is showing such a basic misunderstanding of Germany’s economic policy. For example, Trump’s trade adviser, Peter Navarro, says Germany wants a weak euro, whereas the German government criticises the European Central Bank’s quantitative easing policy which holds down the euro’s value.

It is Trump’s style to attack anyone who stands up to him. Clearly, he enjoys no personal relationship with Angela Merkel. But is it worth sacrificing NATO’s effectiveness by concentrating on comparatively small amounts of money when the big picture of safety and security in Europe and the United States is at stake? Is it worth withdrawing from the Paris Accords for questionable political point scoring? Will America have to re-learn the lesson that isolation both weakens America at the bargaining table and is a policy of doom in a global world?

Years ago, there was a British television programme, Spitting Image. One of the regular skits depicted Ronald Reagan and the question, Is the President’s Brain Missing? I’m starting to wonder whether the same question should be asked about the current incumbent of the White House. Maybe we should all call out, “wake up and smell the Covfeffe.”