egg

Less reliance on US bonds is likely imo so I'll be moving away from my US and general long term bonds. He's ruined the US reputation for at least his term - loss of trust is a killer. Carney nailed it in his amazing speech, and Canada's approach is one that I think other countries, and investors, will adopt.

Agreed. The existing agreement means they can take it over from a military perspective. If he was simply saying that they shouldn't be expected to spend a fortune on their military whilst NATO partners don't bother, and be expected to bail them out when and if needed, it'd be hard to argue. If countries want equal protection under article 5, there shouldn't be disproportionate military spending. Re minerals, Greenland have said they can fill their boots. Fundamentally though, we and other NATO countries have placed over reliance on article 5, and essentially the US.

Agreed. We and Europe have relied on the US coming to our rescue under article 5, and spent significantly less on our military. Trump's only vaguely credible point re Greenland is that if it's invaded, it'll be the US at the heart of solving the problem.

The blokes a cretin. Just goes around the forum adding his daft emojis. Cue a laughing emoji from the idiot.

Hoover

Extraterrestrial

Emily Maitlis talking sense. https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1NNQvrT3x2/

If for a sustained period an MP loses the whip, they cease to represent that party, so should face a bye election. They can then stand as an independent, and if their constituents want them, they're back in. A sustained period could be, say, 6 months which is more than long enough for a party to decide if it wants an MP back in the fold.

Surely it'd be a Reform/Tory coalition with a slim majority? Grim prospect, but sell the point that Farage is an English Trump, and people will hopefully come to their senses.

Interesting. An MP is usually voted due to the party they represent rather than who the are as an individual, so I'm very much of the view that if they defect them have a bye election. Ditto if they lose the whip for a sustained period.

The Bigot & Barrell

A 3 way global carve up?

They won't. Regardless, Trump calling them tariffs is inaccurate. Tariffs are targeted against specific items for a specific trade purpose. These are more akin to economic sanctions, at best.

What people? We booted them off the island.

We bought it from someone in 1965 so there was definitely ownership.

Indeed. His latest view is probably the better one though to be fair. Where it is daft is that it removes part of our leverage with the US. The Tories started that particular ball rolling, and I'm not sure what was ever on it for us. Feels like "doing the right thing" rather than anything beneficial to us.

We know they won't. Now onto the Chagos Islands. I think it likely that once our sovereignty ends, Trump will annexe all the islands. Being a sub tenant of just one of the islands won't be enough for him.

That all but confirms that Russia don't have their eyes on Greenland.

There's theory, then there's what happens. People have been hiding behind the theory of NATO togetherness, and look how that's going.

What do you think would happen if countries told him his troops and gear weren't welcome? If they refuse to go, there isn't a bailiff to send in.

Situation

And thirdly, historical political figures are exactly that, and the label attached to Trump and his ideology doesn't change a single thing. How he's dealt with internationally and domestically is what matters.

Excellent, and in all seriousness, I'm glad you're not encouraging him.

Trump seems to think that he can do what he likes without recourse to the senate. He just cites "national security" and uses executive orders. I'd be more aligned with your point if I had any faith that this lunatic would respect rules, decency, allies, or democracy. Alas, he doesn't respect any of that, and is focused on "winning, which is another way of saying getting his own way.

I'm not sure of the relevance of that to what we've been discussing.