Not recommended for those of a sensitive disposition…………
Proceed at your own risk!
President Trump has declared that NATO members must pay their whack. Apparently members ‘should’ be paying 2% of GDP p.a. but very few do, notably Canada, France, Germany and Italy, whose annual subs fall well short. Only Greece, Estonia and Poland pay up alongside the US and UK.
Now, being a simple soul, I think Trump has a point. No doubt the defaulters have long lists of excuses to offer but (as Jazz has kindly observed) I’m a stickler for rules.
At a time when Russia seems intent on reigniting the cold war and reasserting its control of its borders with the EU, are the less enthusiastic NATO countries expressing their apathy, their poverty or wha’?
Answers please on anything saleable.
I beg to differ, Justin. And I offer the K.I.S.S. mantra in celebration both of today’s romantic tradition and of common sense. The British attitude (yes, a generalisation, I know, but a well-documented one) to European unity post WWII was always to welcome uncomplicated trade ties but to be suspicious of political links. We were gradually entangled in the tentacles of a growing monster, allowing ambitious politicians too much rope and suffering the consequences. And voting to leave cannot be called a fascist act! If it can be termed a revolution , then it’s against the abuse of unelected power and the loss of British sovereignty, and in support of real democracy.
The EUroprats will seek to over-complicate Brexit, believing erroneously that procrastination will serve their cause, while many of the individual member states will wish to hasten a solution, to avoid disruption of bilateral relations with the UK.
His VP says we are getting used to him ‘speaking his mind’. Well, yes, but there is a clear line between expressing an opinion based on facts and expressing an objection in derogatory terms (ad hominem). His latest jibe – the ‘so-called judge’ crosses that line.
This portrait catches admirably his other Donald Duck-like features.
It gives me no pleasure to report that the PoW is gradually disqualifying himself from kingship. Why? How?
Well, loyal monarchists, you already know that the Monarch is revered for her studied neutrality (despite a lovable slip of the tongue on Brexit!) while her heir is building for himself a reputation as a meddler. He probably convinces himself that comment on climate change and religious persecution is not political, failing to recognise that all serious issues become political as soon as a head of state (in waiting) comments. His latest (alleged) statement is that people are now too obsessed by Brexit (to care about his priorities).
Can’t he just nurture his thespian talents or fall off a few more polo ponies? Luckily his sons have both feet on the ground.
Please pardon my use of an ’80s catchphrase from Madison Avenue but I’m struggling to understand why so many Yanks, non-Yanks and (allegedly) Mexicans object to the promised Trump wall. I suspect the Mexican gubmint’s objection is based on Trump’s high-handed assumption that the border is his to control rather than shared; and his demand that Mexico must pay for it.
There can be no comparison with the Berlin wall, which divided a single country. There is no comparison with Shengen, based on agreed principles of trade and movement. The USA needs to deal with illegal immigration and the drug trade. How else but by erecting a physical barrier capable of being defended?
Suggestions, please, on plastic fivers……
”A bill to confer power on the Prime Minister to notify, under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, the United Kingdom’s intention to withdraw from the EU.
Be it enacted by the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:—
1 Power to notify withdrawal from the EU
(1)The Prime Minister may notify, under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, the United Kingdom’s intention to withdraw from the EU.
(2)This section has effect despite any provision made by or under the European Communities Act 1972 or any other enactment.
2 Short title
This Act may be cited as the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017.”
Clarity of expression is a thing of beauty. Mess about with that, Bremainers!
The esteemed Supreme Court has spoken, understandably pointing out that its decisions are about the law, not politics. And as the gubmint expected, it will have to ask both houses to approve its implementation of Brexit. Fine.
But much cooler (I’m so modern, huh?) is its short sharp rebuke to the fringes of British Isles. Butt out! Brexit is a UK decision. So will the Scotch PM finally leave the stage? I hope so.