The most craven "both sides" washing hands of moral responsibility I've seen for ages, from Mike Tapp.
"If Donald Trump does move against Greenland, or against Denmark, is that a different matter? Will the UK government condemn that?"
[waffle, waffle "both sides" blah] We're not going to give a running commentary ... When it comes to Denmark, Greenland and the United States, these are both NATO members, and I'm really proud that NATO has used discussion over division to ensure that these problems are in the past ..."
"Can you just say that Donald Trump should not do the same in Greenland?"
"What I can say, really clearly, is that I can't see this being any different to previous conversations that need to be had between NATO members ..."
"... I find it extraordinary that you can't just say, flat out, that Donald Trump needs to not intervene on Greenland ..."
"... the Venezuelan issue is clearly different from the Greenland issue, but that's for them to have those discussions ...
"So you don't have an opinion on whether or not Donald Trump should go into Greenland?"
"Well, look, this isn't for me to sit here and talk about hypotheticals which could go on forever..."
"The Danish Prime Minister is talking about this, she's asked the US to step - this is not a hypothetical"
And that was followed the most un-self-aware, laughable thing I've heard:
"And that's why it's important that allies stand firm"
"Firm"? How dare this jellyfish in ministerial form talk about anyone being "firm".
= new reply since forum marked as read