Rhiannon
|
Re: Is THIS What You Wanted?
Jun 29, 2016, 20:27
|
|
And you'll be voting for this country's new prime minister will you? Well if you're in the general membership you can pick between two, chosen for you. And if you're not in the party then no. Hmm Crabb and his progressive voting against gay marriage. Boris and his master plan. A N other perhaps.
|
Captain Starlet
|
Re: Is THIS What You Wanted?
Jun 29, 2016, 20:35
|
|
Actually in this case that rule may not apply as no party has campaigned or proposed any mandate outside of the EU! Cameron was so sure he'd win he didn't bother to think about that! So a GE could be called as any govt in place literally right now has no mandate to govern!
|
Portantissues
|
Re: Is THIS What You Wanted?
Jun 30, 2016, 08:18
|
|
>>As to your other points, we can have almost all of that without ceding control of our own state, peoples, borders etc. I'm for self-determination,
|
Portantissues
|
Re: Is THIS What You Wanted?
Jun 30, 2016, 08:46
|
[second attempt]
>>As to your other points, we can have almost all of that without ceding control of our own state, peoples, borders etc.
|
Portantissues
|
Re: Is THIS What You Wanted?
Jun 30, 2016, 08:46
|
[second attempt]
"As to your other points, we can have almost all of that without ceding control of our own state, peoples, borders etc."
Then it seems you did not fully understand what I was writing about. As I said, your "new spring of nations" approach presupposes we are still in the world of the nineteenth century. Certainly the specific case I mentioned (and which should concern forum members) of international criminal doings with antiquities cannot be dealt with on a national level if there is nothing linking coordinated activity into a trans-border framework.
As I said, I suggest the document to which you linked is best read on its own merits and not seeking confirmation of preconceptions.
|
