Your presence here has really been too short and under...

Your presence here has really been too short and under researched.

Firstly everybody here is well aware of the agreement between the two parties. This is not new to anyone.

Secondly, we are also well aware that IA supported Kvanefjeld When they sat in coalition with suimit. However when they gained power. That advice soon changed.Given the flippant nature of the government of Greenland and how strongly supportive a few of the parties have been to the project. I would not be surprised to see it happen all over again.

Thirdly, we now see cracks between the party. Something you've been trying to hide but as we explain to you it was happening you insisted that it wasn't. This is another article which decrees this.

Fourthly, we also now see cracks in the uranium law. Something you felt was sure fast now it seemed to be questioned and in fact a bone of contention which may split the parties yet again. Much as we all told you for some time. But you didn't listen and now it's happening.

Finally, I doubt whether anyone here nor the SP finds this information anywhere near as relevant as ETMs court case. All factored in. The government of Greenland can bicker to the hearts content about article 20. It will not make any difference to the court case on whether a licence should be issued to ETM or not. It is a superfluous distraction you apparently need and suggesting there is a concern. Given all this, if anything. You've just shown us support that cracks are forming in the political real estate of Greenland and the outcome seems to do nothing but question the validity of something you were so sure of before

Welcome to your undoing