Remoaners are right: we *didn’t* have full information before Britain voted in the 1st EU referendum. It was in 1975. The 2nd EU referendum was in 2016, when we knew what membership meant. We chose to LEAVE. Let’s move on.https://twitter.com/bbcquestiontime/status/779079051600277504 …
-
-
Yes. We were taken in without consultation.
-
Indeed. By stealth.
-
Indeed. By stealth. By Heath .
#TedHeath -
This Tweet is unavailable
New conversation -
-
-
EEC, then EC, then EU. But it’s all pedantic. It’s always been about creating a centralised political state.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Where in that London based papers article does it make clear joining the EEC would lead to the UK ceding soverignty to the EU........I'll wait
-
The fact that
#brexit is possible on paper proves we didn't lose sovereignty. We invested part of it in the EU for prosperity, security and opportunity. Just as we invest part in NATO for defense, UN, etc.. Question for#brexiteers is where better to invest it? WTO???? -
The European Court of Justice is just 1 thing that rubbishes your logic.pic.twitter.com/XMIdtDt6Ks
-
Voters would have known about the role of European courts before 70s EU referendum because their roles were described in the Treaties of Rome in 1957. UK never gave up supreme power of authority. In fact, it is exercising its retained power right now. Compare with Chechnya.
-
If I volunteer into a contract have I given up my independence/agency? I might argue I have if the contract is irrevocable or extends to infinity time. Modern law provides for both of those cases so I retain independence while taking on contractual obligations. EU is the same.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
This Tweet is unavailable
-
Blair promised a referendum on the before they reneged & signed Lisbon. He also created open door immigration. Remainers are hypocrites.
-
This Tweet is unavailable
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable
-
-
Correct. Now you've made your point clearer.
-
It was perfectly clear to begin with!!
-
Oh of course it wasn't.
-
It absolutely was and you should be pleased because anyone reading your messages credits you with enough intelligence to understand what
@JuliaHB1 meant even if you're pretending to be stupid to suit your point. -
What she meant wasn't what she said initially. Hence the need for the clarification. Please re-read and stop acting stupidly. If pro brexiters can't state the case properly then bale out. You are a handicap to us.
-
So I call you out and your faux stupidity and your response is to tell me to stop acting stupidly? The case was started clearly enough, this pathetic attempt at arguing semantics is exactly the kind of infantile response which belittles adult debate. You bale out kiddo.
-
That's the point. The original tweet was *not* accurate. It wasn't even ambiguous. Making the point of what actually happened is not semantics. It wasn't a debate pro/agin leaving.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.