You were the one that brought up geography...
It appears only to apply when it suits your erroneous argument...
So what's new
Greenland Vs NATO
- Thread starter Highway Man
- Start date
It appears only to apply when it suits your erroneous argument...
So what's new
ask a more precise question then
I think starmer is keen to get on with it and hope time will make the embarrassment fade.
The Telegraph seem to think that if Trump is against it, the deal is dead. Over to you Mr Trump. Were you just bullsh1tting. Or did you mean it.
Trump has ended the Chagos deal, regardless of what Starmer says
The US president was right to kibosh the PM’s sell-out treaty and now it looks dead in the water
www.telegraph.co.uk
He'll carry on as before.
Unlikely. Until the focus turns back to his best buddy Jeffrey, that is. It'll follow the orange rapist wherever he goes. It's not going away. Things will only get worse for the embarrassing nonce, if the mid-terms forecasts are to be believed.
They can stay in Crawley
Or maybe they could go to Greenland
Greenlanders could be in for a finacial windfall thanks to global warming ??
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 25,628
- Reaction score
- 5,713
- Country
what parallel universe have I stumbled into where Ellal agrees with me and MNW67 reads the telegraph. 
"Trump didn't U-turn", saysThe Telegraph seem to think that if Trump is against it, the deal is dead. Over to you Mr Trump. Were you just bullsh1tting. Or did you mean it.
Trump has ended the Chagos deal, regardless of what Starmer says
The US president was right to kibosh the PM’s sell-out treaty and now it looks dead in the water
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 25,628
- Reaction score
- 5,713
- Country
and cash for votes.
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 25,628
- Reaction score
- 5,713
- Country
Is anyone else running this angle?The Telegraph seem to think that if Trump is against it, the deal is dead. Over to you Mr Trump. Were you just bullsh1tting. Or did you mean it.
Trump has ended the Chagos deal, regardless of what Starmer says
The US president was right to kibosh the PM’s sell-out treaty and now it looks dead in the water
I don't know. I can't actually read the full article because I ended my Telegraph subscription a couple of months ago.
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 25,628
- Reaction score
- 5,713
- Country
hit refresh then hit stop or ask your fav ai to read it to you
It has been stated by David Lammy, the former foreign secretary himself, who said in a memorable interview last year to add to his personal oeuvre: “If President Trump doesn’t like the deal, the deal will not go forward … they’ve got to be happy with the deal or there is no deal.” It was a statement as clear as the pristine waters of the Chagos maritime preservation area.
It has been stated by David Lammy, the former foreign secretary himself, who said in a memorable interview last year to add to his personal oeuvre: “If President Trump doesn’t like the deal, the deal will not go forward … they’ve got to be happy with the deal or there is no deal.” It was a statement as clear as the pristine waters of the Chagos maritime preservation area.
I've mentioned that several times already. I can't see how it can go ahead if Trump is really against it. But is he. Or was he just having a hissy fit because of Greenland.
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 25,628
- Reaction score
- 5,713
- Country
Since its only the Telegraph running it I can't see how it will stall unless there is a rebellion.
Last edited:
I've been reading a discussion on Reddit with people who seem to know a lot more about this. The US were totally on board throughout. It is just a stupid game from Trump. Basically, saying what I have said all along i.e. there is absolutely no chance that two different US administrations would let us deal with one of their most important military and intelligence assets without them being in charge of the process every step of the way. One of the reasons is that it suits them for the base to be extra territorial; think rendition.
