http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-44134910 N Korea threaten to cancel Trump meeting. How unexpected.
They've obviously read up on what what happened to Gaddafi after he promised the US to stop building nukes. (and the charming Mr. Bolton)
http://www.theweek.co.uk/us/61445/executive-orders-how-a-us-president-can-rule-by-decree https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...forms-new-france-union-protests-a7962141.html Nope. I am commenting on how people are banging on about Trump while it is OK for others to push policy through bypassing parliament. Something I hear a lot of moaning about these days r.e. Brexit. "Must go through parliament." Obama, Trump. Should both go through their parliament as should Macron as should Brexit.
But the Guardian is fake news. They put an article up a few years back supposedly from Owen Jones saying that Labour should be championing leaving the EU. Must be fake. Surely.
You are wasting your time on this one. You are debating with people who all agree "A bad deal is better than no deal." They've been saying this for ages becuase their leaders say it so they repeat it.
You seem to be struggling today Imps. You should be happy; Saints are still in the PL, Imps are in the play-offs, the Tories are still in government, and Brexit is turning into the car crash leave voters claim they always wanted, so what's the problem?
You'd need to ask them to be certain but I'd say the answer would be that the aim was to make Iran less capable of building a nuclear weapon rather than anything to do with active Iranian efforts to build a nuclear weapon. While they didn't believe Iran was trying to build a nuclear weapon, they were concerned Iran was becoming more capable of developing one and might change their mind and start to pursue such a weapon. On the economics, there are plenty of situations where people kill those they trade with. The other point is that Iran is highly unlikely to openly attack the USA or UK. It's ultimately a question of balance and Iran has been given a lot of concessions and access to huge sums of money in return for not agreeing not to build a nuclear weapon and allowing some inspections to confirm that. As the independent nuclear inspectors say Iran hasn't really been trying to build a nuclear weapon since 2003 that doesn't seem to me be a particularly good deal. Others will disagree. With a bit of luck they'll offer me a large sum of money if I agree not to join the Pompey Supporters' Club.
How is them giving us a lot of money for something they were not going to do anyway not a good deal for us? Boeing alone is losing a 20bn contract to sell planes to Iran Air.
Grenfell Tower: Me: I saw the tower burn with my own eyes and it was the inflammable cladding that spread the fire killing 72 people. Ban inflammable cladding. Government: hold umpteen reviews costing millions of pounds over the next few years, do absolutely nothing. Some learned official even said "banning something doesn't ensure that someone won't use it anyway"
Inflammable cladding is and was banned though, which included the stuff used on the tower. so i'm really confused at what they are getting at.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44148694 Just to clarify the review (not the Government) into Grenfell did not recommend banning inflammable cladding in their findings. The Government were not happy with that and have therefore announced the consultation. They could have done nothing. The quote in SiS's post (or similar) was made by the independent report's author, Dame Judith Hackitt. Maybe it's difficult for them to just ban the cladding without a recommendation so they are trying to get one. Just trying to be fair here with the facts available instead of being political.
