nauseus

Did you read the two links in my first post? You know, the one when you asked: "What's your point?"

Well done. You managed to get this back on topic.

Nope. Deflection alert.

Yep, they should have cleared Soi 3 and the little sois at the back already in case of explosion and flying debris. Useless.

EU... corruption....oh no......can't believe it. ????

I can't follow this gibberish.

The palace will normally try to avoid comment on this type of thing. This is not a denial or anything else. How do you know what 'all sides' accept? What has this charity woman got to do with this?

Good.

The press don't respect 'terms' much - if you are newsworthy and want them then you get what you get. Often you get them, even if you don't want them.

Ridiculous claims and assumption.

You have yet to demonstrate your "because it's true" truth.

Financial backing? How and how much?

You did - the corruption story was about the EU - not the UK.

These are the official numbers. https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/who-we-are-and-what-we-do/elections-and-referendums/past-elections-and-referendums/eu-referendum/campaign-spending-eu-referendum Remain: £19,309,588 Leave: £13,332,569 When the extra £9 million of tax payers money that the Gov spent on sending their 'advice' to all UK households to recommend remaining in the EU is added, then it can be seen that more than double the amount was spent on the remain effort than on the leave campaign.

Deflector shields, Mister Sulu.

My argument, according to your way of reasoning, is that what you say is not true. ????

So show the details of 'financial backing' and how that could possibly counter the money supporting remain, including tax payers money?

How can you say that?

Your links concern periods that predate even the European Coal and Steel Community! Imperial Preference did not have to mean a hard stop to trading with The Commonwealth but EEC Preference (protection) did. In 1973, when the UK joined, the Common Agricultural Policy was already in place, with revenues from the high levies on food imports, as well as those from common external tariffs on industrial goods boosting the EEC’s own resources. At this time the UK was at an immediate disadvantage because it imported far more from non-EC countries. Tony Blair Institute globalist nonsense. No thanks.

And it was less than 5 minutes.

Rubbish. EEC tariffs were applied to UK trade with Australia and NZ when we joined in 1973, effectively killing imports from our Commonwealth.

What is the nonsense here is your claim about the reason for the creation of the EU and also your claim that the EU can be compared with the US and China. Both wrong.

No it wasn't and no it doesn't.

Cruel.

Oh well.