nauseus

Style? Gawd.

I know, at least his timing of it anyway.

So, the 13 year old Government before that was in complete control? Bahaha.

The speech was Birmingham, UK, 1968.

You did it again!

I used to know a girl who had a wee bo ... oh never mind.

Twelve years? Oh I see.

No, not long, right from page 1 the word racist was first used by some character called Chomper, I think.

Yes 1833, after which the Royal Navy lost over 2000 sailors through years of trying to get the rest to stop too. Some countries were and are much worse than other slavers, even up to today.

Sounds like a Ponzi scheme alright - doomed to failure.

Stick with Trump then, if he's less Trumpier than DeSantis.

Who cares? She's gone.

I have no idea what you're on about now so I will leave you to confuse some other poor sod.

A rag is a common term for a low quality publication. The comment was a personal opinion - not an accusation of lying.

You didn't supply any links in this thread immediately prior to your comment with the link that I did read.. Maybe you didn't?

I said the hearings were not allowed. Any evidence was not heard. I don't know what it was. I'm not screaming, you are. So less of the block capitals, if you please. Thanks.

Nah.

Less vetoes = less control. Any state vetoing a treaty might risk its EU membership. I've already explained that what might be ok for the majority might not be so for the minority.

As far as I remember hearings were dropped, declined, dismissed or similar and a few that got through at state level were quickly squashed by the Supreme Court and never fully heard either. After that lot there's little point in trying again, is there?

Who mentioned lying?

Oh I agree with the self-sufficiency bit. But I don't agree with the rebate imbalances .

Don't expect me to remember when and where you post your links. And your fact check lot even admit they can't check some of the stuff they are talking about:

Four years to check out and we still have to pay the Klingons! Great.

Explain a bit please.

Yes, "ever closer union". Before the UK joined in 1973, the EEC - European Economic Community - was generally called The Common Market, indicating it to be an economic association, and this is how most UK politicians tried to sell it. The problem is that this "intended scope" was not limited within the treaty, which was not easily accessible by the public for reading and evaluation. The treaty certainly wasn't limited to trade and economics either! By 2016 there were plenty signs that the aim of a single European state was indeed real and that's a big reason why there was a leave vote.