nauseus

It always seemed that the UK was some kind of "associate" member anyway. There were few such offers from the EU in 2016 - all of their conditions meant staying in really.

So we can rejoin ourselves, most generous. But your ball needs cleaning.

Not a very pleasant sentiment. But typical.

Wrong guess. I put "agreed" because the laggard members who had "agreed" to the 2% dragged their collective a$$es for the next 10 years, even contributing less after 2006, in some cases. The Russian annexation of Crimea did boost the NATO pot but so did Donald Trump - his threat that NATO might lose the USA as its main guard was at least as great as the threat from Russia. Trump's speech confirmed his message to NATO regarding funding - as in stop messing about and get your money on the table. He was quite right to press for this, as we can all see now.

The original 2% target was "agreed" back in 2006 but several members' contributions actually declined after this and the agreement was not fulfilled. The 2024 deadline was included in a new 2014 pledge, when light members finally began to wake up after the Crimea was annexed! Even then money was slow to flow but after Trump complained about this directly to NATO in 2017, contributions improved more thereafter. Not politically correct, of course, but that's Trump and that worked. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_67655.htm https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4glfwiMXgwQ

The increases were pledges that been broken previously.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-nato-summit-trump-spending-idUSKBN1K12BW https://www.heritage.org/defense/commentary/nato-allies-now-spend-50-billion-more-defense-2016

All of those Cali attributes were in place long before Newsom. NATO "standing" was actually enhanced by Trump's boot in its a$$ - that made NATO more prepared for 2022.

Mind the sandbag.

Well Mr. Flamboyant just presided over 4 relatively stable years for the US, until the mess right at the end. Those final two months needed Trump to accept his election lot and concede, to have a better chance to try again. That chance has probably gone now. For sheer idiocy, then I would go with the vastly experienced present POTUS, who seems to be ruining and harming the country, perhaps irreparably, with rash policies, insane military decisions and general stupidity. Biden seems to have learned nothing over a privileged 40+ year opportunity, Hopeless.

You sound like Mandelson. So we will disagree, forever.

You're probably right.

You must have been at the south pole.

River beast?

The Treaty of Rome was bad enough. The EEC/EC/EU was always intended to be controlled by an unelected few, over the peons. European economic agreements and trade could be arranged separately and would work well, without all the politics. I think that enough of the British saw that and so voted out in 2016. Maybe a reminder is needed?

Like cancelled?

I know what I wrote. It was a reply to another comment - not yours of course. Why don't you go back there and start again and see if you can understand?

And this is why Biden is polling so strongly! ????

If you look back - something you rarely do - you will see that I did not criticize Romney's comments. Go away.

Yes, nobody mentioned that. Well done.

You are trying to associate two different things to suggest something that I didn't say. Go away.

123...third degree...555

As you well know. 555

Well, we'll see who comes out the most corrupt and compromised. Do you mean this ever popular-Mitt Romney who just gave in?

Even if it's nothing to do with the post that you are responding to? Carry on then but it can get lonely out there.