nauseus

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.

This IS the fault of illegal economic migrants, criminals and criminal gangs which are enabling far more people to risk the journey. A clear case of system overload, so that, yes, the process is dragging out much longer than usual. It is also a government problem but not necessarily its fault. In August Home Secretary Priti Patel said:

You were correct. I just agreed.

As far as I remember, yes.

The site does not explain itself the way you are trying to. If someone is in the UK illegally, then it’s not a given that they are "flying under the radar" - that group are likely staying in hotel accommodation, waiting for their hearings on asylum claims/legal status and so, yes, of course they are costing (the UK tax payer) a fortune in the meantime. That meantime might mean years. Others that have dispersed "under the radar" will have their own reasons for doing that, which are illegal in themselves and not likely not to be good ones in any case. Assuming that this last group will probably include a criminal element, then, in time, the extra cost of accommodation at HM Prisons will likely just add more onto the tax bill. Looks like it's you struggling, not me, I'll leave you to it

That's because most of them are probably not genuine refugees, Mac. How many of them even tried to get a visa or enter legally I wonder?

The first thing that the website says is that "one of the most important facts about refugees in the UK is that they’re currently under attack like never before". That statement is not true IMO - Britain has always protected and given sanctuary to true refugees. The problem is not those who are not fleeing real danger but those who have left a safe place and are trying to enter the country illegally for their own ends. This latter group causes a big and costly problem, whatever happens to them later.

More rubbish.

Two minutes? Not surprised. Many of the so-called facts on their site are just dribble.

I'm sure they'll bear your sage advice in mind.

Guess so.

Been playing Angry Birds again?

No. Your own version is Biden.

Yes, strategic. But after all the <deleted> they been throwing at Trump for the last 6 years I don't think anyone is going to believe any so-called :praise" from the Democrats. As for "angry old white men", well you've got your own version and he won't win again either.

Agree, pointless. Anyway, if there has been any sell-out it's more likely been done by Biden.

One of Dickens' books became a bit of a cult icon, Great Expectations I think it was. Toodle-Pip!