The EU debate - Part III

No, you just keep closing your eyes tight and going lalalalalallalalalaala, I can't hear you, unfortunately.

So you've got no idea at all, but it will be bad and then everything will go wrong? Cheers for that.

please log in to view this image

 

so countries bringing lots of refugees in and considering making them citizens meaning they can move to any country in the EU was considered when the treaty was signed?

 

My eyes are open enough to see you admitting you think it will change and have no idea how, and took a leap into the dark with your vote.

 

No. You're just attempting to drag me down to your level, I'm afraid.

 

I think most people seemingly as confused as you would be afraid.

 

Of course it was. What do you think Govt lawyers do? I doubt anyone thought it was an issue because it isn't one. Accepting refugees is the only reasonable thing to do.

 

I'm not confused at all. You seem to be puzzled and scared by everything, though.
Fear drove your vote and you're dumbfounded by very simple principles.

 

Your posts seem to suggest you're more than a tad confused, and you said yourself that you're afraid.

 

See? You don't even understand simple figures of speech!

 

So "knowing it's going to be bad" means "you don't know"
You, on the other hand "knows what is going to happen" but at the same time "doesn't know what is going to happen"

 

No. It may change in a number of ways but only in accordance with the Treaty we have signed or future Treaties we choose to sign. That prevents it being a 'Leap in the Dark'.

 

It really doesn't.

 

translation: "See? You don't even understand when I'm talking rubbish!"

 

No, you literally said that you didn't know. That was a bit of a giveaway.

When did I say that I knew what was going to happen?

 

Riiight.

 

So in what way does your 'I don't know' differ from a leap in the dark?

 

Perhaps you would like to list the Treaty clauses which could lead to major unforeseen changes being imposed on us?

 

Another one that doesn't understand figures of speech!
I'm surprised that you're all so big on England and it's culture, as you're utterly unfamiliar with the language.

Why do you both keep trying to derail the article, by the way?
All you do is attack anyone that disagrees with you, focus on nonsense and try to big yourselves up.
It's utterly boring, predictable and aimless.

 

You want a list of future things that will be unforeseen?

Are you offering the treaty as the basis for your claim?

 

Yes - it would be nice to see a reasoned argument coming back instead of this tedious point scoring.