I'm explaining to you what having principles means. Not a surprise that the concept is alien to you though
I can't decide whether to admire Theresa May for being tactically astute or dislike her for not working for what she believes in. But maybe she has been doing both ?
i dont hold grudges mate it does confuse me slightly how you can sit there extolling the virtues of one of the most bigoted hateful pricks the country’s seen this side of WW2 and at the same time suggest others are missing principles but it looks like we'll ever see eye to eye on this so feel free to crack on i suppose :thumbsup: its certainly not the cringiest thing ive seen on this thread anyway tbh
C'mon man,don't sit on the fence,tell us how you REALLY feel... I'm not extolling virtues,I'm stating facts. You may not agree with his principles,fair enough,but he is steadfast in his beliefs and not swayed by public opinion,the media or his fellow MEPS I don't like what Jeremy Corbyn stands for,but I admire the mans tenacity and his courage in ignoring all those that did not put him in the position he is: the membership of the Labour party voted him into office,and he answers to those,no one else. The Parliamentary Labour Party are trying to overturn the democratic will of the party members...how does that square with democracy?
. get out while you can exe. youl never guess what the ununited kingdoms has just gone and done. run exe run away :smileys:
I think the hypothetical example of the USA "sharing sovereignty" would apply to their forming a union with Mexico and Canada perhaps. When it comes to the USA as it is, then of course there is sharing of sovereignty, but there are some important differences between the USA and the EU, including: - The individual people of all states elect the President of the USA. - Yes, the states vary in prosperity, but most welfare/health programmes are implemented at a Federal level (I'm happy to be corrected on this). US citizens have complete freedom of movement around the states, and that I assume includes eligibility to claim benefits where appropriate, whichever state they find themselves in. But if those are Federal welfare programmes I would think that they are funded via Federal taxation, so the whole thing starts to make sense. If the EU is to continue with complete "freedom of movement" including the "entitlement" aspect that causes so much concern, then surely it also has to move to a far larger degree of Federal taxation and Federal welfare/healthcare, but how is that going to be done - by stealth?
yip. the costs of all those human/workers rights the red tape saved (scraping of some health and safety regs ) paternity and maternity. big business will love it. and so will the upper working and middle class when they get their 0.1% pay rise. D.A. :smileys:
I can only take this to mean that you sort of favour a one nation EU in which the individual countries will be no more than states or cantons. Well, it's a viewpoint, certainly. You do of course (in typical tongue-in-cheek style) sidestep what sharing sovereignty really means for a nation. We are talking inter-nation, not intra-nation. In any case, the Swiss cantons of course share lots of sovereignty. It's one country, Switzerland, and countless things are nationwide. This is why we have lots of referendums. Occasionally, they are cantonal decisions, but the great majority are national decisions. As you will have divined, of course, I was suggesting that the US might want to create a trading block with Mexico, Canada and other South American countries and then there could be free movement of peoples amongst them. Well of course the US would suffer huge net immigration. But where's the harm in that, eh, if some Americans could go and live on Copacabana Beach? I just can't figure out why the US hasn't already proposed it. There would be no more illegal Mexican immigrants. What's not to like? If I'm the rouser, does that make everyone else in this debate the rabble?
