I dont buy this bizarre revisionist interpretation of the EU

What if the State against the publics will agree to give away our Veto? @Weez

Who forced us to sign treaties?

Veto is not constructive, it is blocking. Its not like a functioning healthy broad democracy where they debate and create. The directors create behind closed doors, the MEPs just ask 'please sir can you rethink?'

When have the state and nation been congruent?

@Weez keep on distorting the truth and ignoring the nuance of the last 40 years of history.

MP's are opposing the will of their voters now

It's a simple question, were we forced to do those things against our will?

So what would stop them from just agreeing despite the public opposition to give away our Veto power

When were WE asked?

Did we have an alternative option in those events?

At general elections @Lêohte

And in the previous referendums.

@Weez We never had a choice. As I said we weren't allowed a referendum and EU matters weren't in the public's mind.

Yes we had an option to exactly dictate treaties, ofcourse

@Weez It is a dishonest loaded question and you know it.

Hes a jew

We just need to destroy the EU and try again

Dont bother

Ok now to race

"EU matters weren't in the public's mind." @Mr. Jesus You don't think about policies before voting in your party?

When were we asked if we'd like to be flooded with racial aliens?

Set up a new EU based one different principles

Maybe one based on Nationalistic Libertarianism

@Weez The EU wasn't as it was today back in the late 80s and 90s

It's not dishonest, nor loaded.

Weez the parties don't follow the policies, haven't for decades!

how young are you Weez?

for decades they have ignored manifestos as soon as they were elected

what we vote for is never implimented

@Weez yes it was as you ignored everything I said before on the matter

for d e c a d e s

Again, what forced us to agree or to sign any of this?

nm, was worth a try. Have a good evening chaps

@Weez Why won't you honestly engage?

The more I argued with them, the better I came to know their dialectic. First they counted on the stupidity of their adversary, and then, when there was no other way out, they themselves simply played stupid. If all this didn't help, they pretended not to understand, or, if challenged, they changed the subject in a hurry, quoted platitudes which, if you accepted them, they immediately related to entirely different matters, and then, if again attacked, gave ground and pretended not to know exactly what you were talking about. Whenever you tried to attack one of these apostles, your hand closed on a jelly-like slime which divided up and poured through your fingers, but in the next moment collected again. But if you really struck one of these fellows so telling a blow that, observed by the audience, he couldn't help but agree, and if you believed that this had taken you at least one step forward, your amazement was great the next day. The Jew had not the slightest recollection of the day before, he rattled off his same old nonsense as though nothing at all had happened, and, if indignantly challenged, affected amazement; he couldn't remember a thing, except that he had proved the correctness of his assertions the previous day.

Sometimes I stood there thunderstruck.

I didn't know what to be more amazed at: the agility of their tongues or their virtuosity at lying.

Gradually I began to hate them.

I am, you're failing to answer a simple question.

@Mr. Jesus Read this

Well if leaders lied, then that in effect is forcing the people to agree

The leaders we voted into power represent us. They signed those agreements.

Thus, we signed up for them.