The eu wants to be a country, it has the anthem, it has the flag, it has central government buildings and now controls the 28 fin mentioned the tariffs on whisky but it is far more than that as it is the tariff war between the eu and the u.s. the eu isn't even a country and yet here they are acting on behalf of the 28 and forcing the eu into trade war with the states. The tariff extra charge will begin on the 18th of this month https://time.com/5691458/trump-tariffs-whiskey-cheese-eu/
the EU has 28, soon to be 27, then 28 again soverign nations. nobody who is gonna elect those soverign govs want a one nation EU. yer trolling again.
If referendums are non binding fin, you can have a vote anytime you want, why despite saying every year since 2016 that they want another vote, hasn't helmet head had one?
feck off man, she is the same as the rest of them. She knows if she does not get an absolute win, she's out. She'd rather spend years moaning about not getting a vote than get one, lose and go back to the backbenches. She's in it for herself make no bones about it.
trolling. but, if you where to be less of a drama queen about it you could say she is taking her time about it. to much time for many. personnaly, i think the time is about now, but i get why she is waiting.
anyone dares accuse the snp of being the same as the rest of them automatically gets the "fin says trolling" badge, bless him snp fin is an anagram for Self Preservation Nicola, fer all her rammin, piss and wind she ain't making any moves other than her gum flappin.
anyone dares accuse the snp of being the same as the rest of them automatically gets the "fin says trolling" badge, bless him accuse others of what you are guilty of yourself? very toryish no? yip, yer right. got yer finger on the pulse so you do.
I get the distinction about the referendum being “Advisory”, but having been asked the question, the pleb’s choice should be taken as indicative of the direction they intend our politicians to go. If we can’t Leave because it’s too difficult, why was it on the ballot paper? I still think the main reason we didn’t leave in March is the process has been undermined by politicians of all parties who think as “Representatives” of the people they should do the opposite to the referendum view. Compromise between Leave and Remain is an absurdity comprising standing in the doorway, or sitting on a fence, but that solves nothing and leads nowhere as a solution. I also consider that ‘a significant proportion of moderate Leavers feel betrayed that they were made promises and they put their trust in those who made those promises, only to find they’d been lied to’, but also that many feel betrayed by Remain voting MPs representing Leave voting constituencies. There shall be a reckoning in the ballot boxes!
Good question. I refuse to believe that I was the only one who saw how this would go (I wasn’t - lots of other lawyers I spoke to predicted it as well). Both the Leave and Remain campaigns would have lots of highly paid advisors who must have been briefing their side that this was not going to turn out well. However, Leave ran a very successful black propaganda campaign about the alleged excesses of the EU (which spoke to middle England and the mouth breathers), combined with positive messages comprised of promises (aimed at moderates/fence sitters) that we “had them over a barrel”, “we will get a cake and eat it deal within 24 hours”, “it’ll be the easiest negotiation in history”, “we hold all the cards” etc. Both of those positions were false but they worked. Remain on the other hand concentrated too much on trying to show how lovely the EU was and spent a lot of time trying to rebut Leave falsehoods and countering what was effectively (and very effective) trolling. Leave also had the majority of the MSM on their side as well as plenty of fringe media too. As such, the Leave campaign set the agenda and unfortunately, contrary to the (usually incorrect) adage “cheats never prosper”, they won. I suspect that if Remain had taken the lines which I was constantly yelling at the telly (“this is never going to happen”, “the EU will never give us that sort of deal”, “the legal systems, regulatory systems and economies are way too entangled with each other” and so on) then not only were the arguments too technical to be easily and attractively summarised (especially in this day and age where concentration spans are very short and people glaze over at anything longer than a slogan or soundbite), that stance would have been spun against them as weakness and defeatism and accusations that nobody can see into the future.
Are you confusing propaganda with facts? http://germany.trendolizer.com/2019...vate-jets-despite-climate-change-pledges.html https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/sep/25/mep-expenses-eu-court-ruling remind me again who the swivel eyed loons are again?
