JonnyF

5 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

You forgot to add, he comes home with the love of his life, and she's not accepted by family.

Please provide evidence that she wasn't accepted.

All the evidence I see (the fantastic cottage, the multi million pound wedding, the glowing words) indicate that she was absolutely accepted by the family. She just preferred California so she manufactured the victim narrative to justify leaving. Some people fell for it. Not many though. Most see exactly who she is and what happened.

4 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

So not the dress that’s allegedly broken any ethics rules.

 

I’m sure ‘the attention’ is merely a distraction from her work representing the people of her district.

 

Being an intelligent and outspoken woman I’m sure she’s accustomed to the accusations of being ‘attention seeking’, it’s all part of that predictable reaction some men have to intelligent, out spoken women; I believe I’ve mentioned it in the past.

Well the dress is not a living entity so No, it cannot break the rules. AOC's payments for the rental of the dress broke them.  

I love intelligent women. Attention seeking narcissists? Not so much. 

Another nail in the coffin of women's sport.  

I wonder how long before we get to see biologically male boxers battering women in the boxing ring? All in the name of being kind and progressive of course ????.

11 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The dress didn’t break any ethics rules.

Depends how she paid for it.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/05/nyregion/aoc-met-gala-house-ethics.html

I'm sure she's enjoying all the attention anyway.

Wow didn't see that coming, I felt Utd's recent results had been better than their performances but 7-0??? Wow.

I hope Rick is OK. Tough pill to swallow. Maybe he can drown his sorrows with a Vodka and Lemonade?

This woman simply loves attention. Look at meeeeeeee....

The dress was hideous and broke ethics rules. The message was straight of a sixth form common room. Apart from that, whoooo way to go girl!!!

They're probably busily filming the opening of the invitation, then Meghan crying on the floor (left eye only) for the next Netflix series.

Hopefully they stay away. 

Chris Rock did a great stand up hitpiece on this pair of Charlatans. Very amusing. Even black Americans have grown tired of the constant merching of imaginary victimhood. 

Great actor. Did a nice cameo in one of my favourite movies True Romance.

5 hours ago, Sheryl said:

The British tabloid press seems to like to fan the flames and exaggerate (in general of course, but  especially with regard to this subject)

 

You can't "evict" people from a place they no longer live in. 

 

I suppose "King asks Andrew to move into vacant Frogmore Cotrage formerly occupied by Harry & Megan" doesn't have the same  appeal.

They should have kept quiet, changed the locks and let Andrew move in. Then film it when Harry and his wife turn up, Jeremy Beadle style. Sell it to Netflix.

Seriously though, looking at recent pictures of Harry I think he's finally worked it out. He got played, or maybe played himself. Trouble is, he is so dim it will take him 5 years to work out his next move. 

When she's done with him, maybe he can return to the family and work for charities helping Male survivors of psychological domestic abuse? He likes playing the victim.

1 hour ago, Hi from France said:

I can indeed, anyone can 

 

 

 

for example the future of the British car manufacturing is being set in stone right now,  

investments today have consequences that extend beyond the present moment. In this regard, we not only have learned a lot since 2016, but we already know what's next in the automotive industry.

 

 

Is this news to you? Really?

 

You should provide links, not only screenshots. Unless you are trying to hide the source because it's from some anti British Europhilesrus website like The Guardian.

12 minutes ago, candide said:

As usual, you are making things up. There is currently no federalism project. Some people are advocating it, there are debates about it, but there is no official project or position to transform the EU Institutions into federal institutions.

If you look at the precise definition of federalism you can see it is already happening. The states mentioned below are the EU member states. You can argue whether this is a good or a bad thing, but you can't deny it is happening.

5 minutes ago, RayC said:

Two wrongs, etc.

 

Data or gut? We seem to differ on what's best again.

I think data is better. However, in the real world not all of the electorate have the data to hand or are even that interested to go and find out. This applies to both sides, I am sure there are both Remainers and Leavers who voted on gut instinct.

There are also different priorities. Remainers on the whole don't seem too bothered about sovereignty or agency as long as short term GDP is OK. Some people believe trade deals are the be all and end all of doing business. Some people are fine with the protocols of the EU. I take a different view.  

2 minutes ago, RayC said:

Obviously, not all relevant information is available in the public domain in the latter case so it could be used as an explanation. However, in the case of Brexit, the sheer volume and complexity of data which needed to be analysed to make an informed choice - one way or the another - meant that imo people ultimately voted on 'gut instinct'. Surely that is not a good way in which to reach a decision on a matter of such import?

That's true, but many people who vote in General Elections are also completely uninformed and the result of general elections can also have huge implications for the country. 

Many people don't bother to check the party manifestos. Some people vote for one party or another because that's how their parents always voted. Some people vote for a party because they find the candidate physically attractive, or because they are the same sex/race as the candidate. Is that any better than voting on 'gut instinct'? Often, your gut instinct can be very accurate. 

11 minutes ago, Hi from France said:

we already have a 5-years picture and for the next 5 years investments already tells us the tale: "oven-ready" sunlit uplands? They are not in sight

Ahhh - I see you are able to predict the future. Why didn't you tell us that before? 

40 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Up to your usual efforts to drag the discussion off track.

 

Perhaps we should pay attention to what Government ministers have to say about the impact of Brexit on the UK economy:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2023/feb/14/rishi-sunak-tory-conservatives-labour-china-latest-politics-news-updates

That headline really should be "Arch Remainer remains bitter about Brexit". ????

16 minutes ago, transam said:

You never read about UK living conditions in Oliver Twist times then....

 

Now those were tough times, but thankfully for them, no smartphones to be trendy with, just a loaf of bread..........

Brexit was such a disaster, it's even caused Thailand problems. 

What's that you say? Global economic downturn? Covid? War in Ukraine? No No No, any issues in Britain are due to Brexit. ????

55 minutes ago, RayC said:

The British people were asked via the usual process of a General Election. The UK is a parliamentary democracy and the government is mandated to make decisions on the public's behalf and that's what it should do. MPs should also be better equipped to make informed decisions than the general public, although I accept that is open to debate wrt certain MPs.

 

It's difficult though isn't it. General elections are held on a great number of issues. Health, education etc. Similarly, sometimes we vote for a party based on a manifesto (like when I voted for Labour under Blair) and then the party goes and does something that had you known, you never would have voted for them (like going to war in Iraq based on WMD lies). 

That's why on huge issues like Brexit or Scottish Independence there really needs to be a separate vote to understand the direction that the electorate wants their country to go. 

Then, we need to respect that vote. 

20 minutes ago, RayC said:

I agree that the EC in the 1980s and the EU in the 2020s are two completely different entities. It was inevitable that they would be; the world is a completely different place nowadays. One consequence of this is greater regulation within the EU and, yes, closer political union. 

And yet nobody asked the British people what they thought of this change, until 2016 of course.

20 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

Is that necessarily a bad thing and is federalism inevitable? We obviously have different opinions about those matters.

 

I guess that depends on whether you support the concept of the nation state. Personally I do. I'd hate to see individual countries and cultures merge into some kind of dogs dinner where you can't tell the difference between Spain and Italy. Unfortunately, that's the way the EU is heading (and yes, I realize we are not there yet but I am talking about the direction of travel).

28 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The variety of claims for what the Referendum was about grows by the day.

 

Only in your imagination.