nauseus

Last orders please. Drink up.

Well that's what I said in the first place. I am convinced of that.

Maybe....maybe not. But nothing to do with my question, of course,

OK them too.

Maybe.

Rubbish - they have declared what they want to do in the first instance is to reverse many of Biden's XO's and excessive Democrat spending.

Why should the WSJ review and opinion be accepted by anyone? Why did they have access to the HD?

Well he'd probably win the Democrat nomination.

Got a better idea?

No worries. Bear in mind that this reg was for green bananas - you know the ones from Mars.

I didn't suggest any lies, Mac. I just found the wonderful regulation.

Here you go: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CONSLEG:1994R2257:20060217:EN:PDF EU QC saves the day again.

Who actually signed this deal?

It depends if any evidence might implicate his dad.

Maybe he was so out of it he forgot where he left it.

No, he didn't. The FBI did nothing. And the DOJ hasn't come up with anything. So who's the twit?

The sad result of so many people living in or near weakly constructed buildings near a known geohazard. RIP.

So that's OK then. All good.

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.