nauseus

Unless there was a Treaty change, the member states. Why have an extra EU FM then? That sounds like some David Icke type conspiracy theory. More like the EU wet dream of decades. Vetoes have been reduced in number but those that exist retain their potency by definition: A veto is a veto - very few left now and all those are probably on the endangered list. On the subject of the number of vetoes. Is it any surprise given the enlargement of the EU? Obtaining unanimity among 16 members was difficult, let alone among 27/28 member states. There is a need for compromise on occasion. How about a bit less speed and far less greed? Whether the EU should have enlarged so quickly is another matter. See above. Brexit has been an irritant that the EU did not want and has had to deal with, but it has had little, if any, effect on the governance of the EU. I'm sure.

A truly happy chappie.

Still miserable I see.

And which 'person' do you think would have the final say? Look back at the timeline of treaties and events - they're all part of the set up to combine into a super state. Vetoes have been reduced in number and potency over time and QMV has replaced many of them. Brexit has put the brakes on the latest steps. For now.

But when did either ever happen concerning anything of substance? Treaties that were rejected once were just rehashed and offered again (Denmark and France) - all have been accepted in one way or another. You are dreaming. However, as you say. the ultimate choice was always available to the UK, as Brexit demonstrates.

It was a poor try to have a laugh (banana/skin/get it) but there is no point with the misery guts gang, is there?

Read my other post about the proposals for foreign and finance ministers. Oh and the army too.

It is you who should have read what was written more closely. There are no votes on treaty law - sign it or not. That's it. Your 3% number has nothing to do with this.

I bet there's lots of things that you can't fathom.

I acknowledge that Brexit had negative economic effects. There you go. Not rocket science. But with the prospect of the EU vision of a total European merge being realized, I'd say there's a good chance we will end up being intact, and better off, in the long-term

Yup. It's called a democratic right.

You have no idea have you? UK sovereignty was steadily eroded over five decades of EEC/EU membership via a succession of treaties and thousands of regulations, enforced by the primacy of EU Law and the CJEU. Foreign policy would have been next - the EU was proposing to create the posts of both EU Foreign and Finance Ministers in its European Parliament sets out its vision of 2017. This same 'vision' also calls for an EU Defence Union and a future convention to establish the European Armed Forces by the 2020's - something that Clegg flatly denied as a "dangerous fantasy" during the pre Brexit debates.

Read the treaties.

Well they should have been spared. They had some skin the game after all.

Several to choose from, take your pick.

You have to be kidding? Treaty Law is primary EU legislation and any member signing that treaty is obliged to follow the entire treaty. EU Regulations are also binding on member states. EU Decisions are also binding on one or more (selected) member states. Even EU Directives are expected to appear in national law in some form, eventually. All this, while having to accept that EU Law held primacy over UK Law! Little choice but to follow the Brussels Jazz Band - unless a member elects to leave the EU, of course.

Right...hands up...how many of us failed O level economics? I didn't - for the simple reason that it wasn't offered. But A-Level, yes.

Exactly.

Oh I don't know. They'd probably just follow the same time-scale and procedure used already for the French and everyone else. Quite easy really, when you look back. Laughing now?

Trump is everywhere it seems. Your type of nonsense is so obvious it's unlikely to spread far, thankfully. .

The currency would gave gone too - it's the only way the proposal can work - we left while there was still an option to do so.

I came to the same conclusion in 1975 and 2016. The Treaty of Rome answered my questions, although sorting through that mess was time-consuming and very difficult, the first time. Successive treaties have just made the decision easier. For the EEC/EU to function as the original treaty envisioned, then that means the eventual creation of a single European state - this would have to mean that member states would eventually lose their sovereignty to become just regions. This is neither desirable nor acceptable to me. It was never about economics but about preservation of the nation as it is, for future generations. Europe could easily have a "common market" without this appointed political clan ruing over it.

Not necessarily - he might have meant sausage and mash - oh wait a min.

Not much changes on here eh? A topic line that includes the only name as Biden but with ~ 50% responses about Trump.

The 'compulsion' from Brussels went far beyond economic measures and was about to go much further - that's why so many wanted out.