Comments by "Tomorrow Never Dies" (@tomorrowneverdies567) on "Why The EU Is Inherently Dysfunctional" video.
-
26
-
13
-
12
-
@user-hr2cf9kb9t
But how is it inevitable that some countries will have high indebtment exactly? Greece has high debt because of their own government's actions. Not because of the Euro. Otherwise, why do Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia, Slovenia have lower debts than Germany? Are Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia and Slovenia going to own german companies in Germany?
"If there was a shared debt, such as in the US, the other states would bail out states in debt" - of course. But then the estonian for example government could just borrow huge amounts of money, give it to whomever they want to buy luxury german or american cars, thinking "ah! never mind! Germany and the other Eurozone members will pay for it, so I can borrow any money I want now!". So why would for example Germany or Greece or any other Eurozone member accept this?
" the euro, and with it the EU, has a built in design flaw from the start that will make it unsustainable over time. " - when do you expect it to become "unsustainable" exactly? In 2 years? In 10 years? In 100 years? When? I am asking you this question, because I have been hearing to what you said since 2010 in my country Greece.
"Perhaps that was the plan all along? That Germany should own everyone." - does Germany own Greece? What does Germany own exactly? Fraport owns many greek airports, but they are operating very well, and Fraport made them very beautiful inside. So I am very happy that Fraport is the manager of these airports and not the incompetent greek governments.
"But as we have seen, they're not even capable of doing that" - but they don't want to.
11
-
11
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
@chacka4292
"Free market, investments and infrastructure were built with use of the money from EU but also with money and work of Poland. " - but that is the same for every EU member.
"Poland is already transitioning to donator to the EU" - not yet, but in 10 years of similar growth, and continued immigration to Poland of foreign workers, perhaps.
"Open markets is a key. " - I believe that it is a bit more complicated again. Open market for all products with Germany is perhaps beneficial for the polish economy. But if Poland had open markets with China, everyone in Poland would try to buy cheaper chinese products, and so many polish businesses would close, and polish GDP would decrease, and the same for GDP per capita, and unemployment would reach 15%+ in the first 1-3 years as a result.
"we have almost worst demographic in whole EU" - it deopends on how you measure the quality of demographics. Would you prefer it if Poland had 1.5 fertility rate, like Germany has, instead of only 1.3, but at the same time be inhabited by 32% less beautiful peoples who came mostly from Asia and Africa?
" We have a lot of laws put on us by EU that are, let's say questionable" - what laws? I just don't know actually.
"Cause I understand that Croatia, Portugal, Greece or Sweden have completely different societies, goals and problems. " - as a matter of fact, I don't believe they do. What are the so different problems that Croatia or Sweden have for example? I believe that the biggest problems of both are underfertility and immigration from Asia and Africa, which will ultimately reduce the average beauty of the population. Of course, they have different minor problems, as it is also the case within countries.
And why are you against Germany and Russia being friends? Don't you like them to be friends? After all, all Russia and Putin seem to want, is that specific rights of people inhabiting Ukraine be satisfied, such as the right to be taught in russian at schools in eastern Ukraine, or just the annexation of the regions that are majority inhabited by russian people. Why is this so bad? I believe that all western countries should just let Russia annex eastern Ukraine. Then everything would be solved. I could be wrong of course.
7
-
I disagree with you, even though I agree on almost everything you want in your comment. Here is why:
The EU is not a dictatorship or a monarchy. It is voted by the electorates of all EU countries. For example, you many not like all the things you wrote about, but the vast majority of even your own country, Sweden, have entirely different opinions than yours. Here are the 2022 election results for Sweden: 30.3% Social-democrtats, 20.5% Sweden Democrats, 19.1% Moderate, 6.8% Left, 6.7% Centre, 5.3% Christian Democrats5.1% Green, 4.6% Liberal. Turnout: 84.2%.
So why should the EU do what you (and me) want, and not what the vast majority wants? Do you not understand how democratic systems work?
And another question for you: how are Germany, France and Spain "diringist" and "statist", but your country Sweden is not? In my understanding, Sweden is among the most statist countries of the EU and the whole world.
And how are Germany, France, and Spain anti-competitive exactly?
I am greek btw.
6
-
@3yearwinter
But this is not the 12th century or the 19th century. Just because bad things for Poland came from Russia in the 19th and early 20th century does not necessarily mean that Russia now is bad. Is Germany also bad now? Is Austria also bad now, just because AH was born in Austria in 1889 then?
So if I am wrong about the russian topic, please educate me, and show me how I am wrong.
"muscovites are basically heirs to the hunnic and mongol logic, which is why europeans fail to grasp their true mentality" - that sounds pretty prejudiced to me.
" It is completely alien to us, and will forever be so" -what is alien to you exactly? What is so different in russian and polish mentality exactly? Because if you want to hear the truth, to me, a greek person, russian and polish people seem pretty similar π
"The same way we Poles don't exactly understand your issues with the Turks, which I think are actually somewhat comparable" - they are not comparable, because you have no borders with Russia (except Kaliningrad), and at least in my understanding, Poland is in no way threatened by Russia. But relations between Ukraine and Russia are more comparable to the relations between Turkey and Greece, since Ukraine has borders with Russia.
"since both are imperialist steppe hordes in essence." - Russians are "steppe hordes" but Polish people are not? I thought you were both slavic peoples with the same origins and ancestry, so aren't you too "steppe hordes" in your logic? (π) Please come to your senses. 1000 years have past since the existence of "steppe hordes".
"the days of redrawing borders through military conquest are behind us and seen as barbaric." - how is redrawing borders through military conquest bad and barbaric by default exactly? Should polish people during the 19th century sit and do nothing, and not try to uprise against Germany, Russia and Austria, to create an independent Poland as they wanted? Wasn't this a violent change of the borders in 1919? Were polish uprising fighters then barbarians? Were the polish underground fighters barbarians, when they rose in 1944 to liberate Warsaw from both Germany and the coming USSR? Were the Yugoslav wars in the 1990s also barbaric for redrawing the map according to ethnic majority borders, in order to create more stable countries, where people would live psychologically more pecefully?
What is different between the people living in Donetsk, Lugansk, Zaporizhia , Kherson, and Krimea, wanting to live in Russia and not Ukraine, and the will of the Croatian or Serbian people wanting to live in Croatia and Serbia, instead of Yugoslavia? Why do you not respect the will of the majority to live in the country they want? Should Poland also become a part of Russia in your logic?
"Demolishing cities and slaughtering civilians is liberation? " - you should know by now that Russia and Putin are trying their best to minimize civilian and other unnecessary casualties. You know probably well that if they wanted, they could destroy half of Ukraine and march to Kiev in a matter of a few months. The vast majority of thousands of russian tanks are situated deep in Russia. Why? Because Putin does not put the whole strength of the russian army on the war effort. Why? Because he is (still) hoping for a relatively peaceful solution. Or do you think that Russia cannot start producing tanks and planes in thousands per month, like they did already 82 years ago in WW2? Do you really think Ukraine can beat Russia, 82 years after they beat Germany in WW2?
"russia is not going to be satisfied with the annexation of eastern and southern Ukraine." - what will it take for Russia to be satisfied then? Annex Germany? Or will only slavic countries suffice to form the slav empire? π
6
-
@farkasabel who are these nations exactly? Is the geopolitical ideology of France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Sweden, Estonia, Hungary, Czechia, Greece, Slovakia, Slovenia, Romania, Bulgaria based on any "historical enemies" in your theory for example? Is Poland's policies affected by some animosity towards Germany? Because I see zero animosity from the side of Poland towards Germany (and vice versa of course).
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
β @MyPrideFlag
"They never introduced market reforms like Poland did but the state remained the biggest employer in Belarus." - On the trading economics site, I went to the page under "Poland Government Spending to GDP", and "Belarus Government Spending to GDP". There I see that polish government expenditure as a percentage of GDP has been always higher than the respective figure for Belarus. To name just an example, in 2015, for Poland it was 41.7%, and for Belarus just 28.8% (!). So government expenditure in "communist" Belarus, is lower than in all EU countries (perhaps except some that I do not know of). So how exactly is Belarus communist, but countries like Germany, Sweden and Denmark and Poland are not?
"Poland had an extremely free, capitalist economy in 90's" - yes but so did Russia, Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova and Serbia I believe.
"People worked harder than ever and more productive than ever." - yes but so did people in Russia, Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova and Serbia I believe.
"As it was clear that if you don't you live in poverty but if you do, it pays off." - by the way, a worker in my country Greece right now, who has zero specialization, can earn the basic salary of 778 euros net. I studied physics, and I have an MSc from the university of Edinburgh in an area of mathematics. I know many people here in Athens with similar qualifications. They earn 1100-1300 euros net, many having a PhD. I ran a simulation, and I found that this investment pays of after you reach the age of 57. So to me, all these prices (salaries) are clearly not a good incentive to study at university for 6 years (unpaid). I know some people from Poland, and from what they tell me, things are the other way around. My question to you: why do you believe this is like that?
"Meanwhile 90's in Belarus, Russia, Ukraine were just depressing." - I know. Why?
"Poland already had much higher foreign investment in the 90's" - aha.
"EU membership and funds helped build infrastructure and eased trade but at the same time Polish market was taken over by western companies" - would you prefer it if there were no western companies in Poland, and you had the average purchasing power of Belarus, Russia, Ukraine and Moldova?
"not the main factor that caused the gap between Poland and Belarus." - what was the main factors then?
"although (up to this point) EU membership was beneficial for Poland, it was not charity from western Europe" - to me, it seems it was almost charity. What has Germany, Sweden, the Netherlands, Austria gained from Poland's, Hungary's, Romania's, Greece's, Bulgaria's accession to the EU?
Answer: what they won was (is) that the secret ideological political organization that governs western Europe (and North America, and others) expanded its geographic area of control to eastern Europe.
And now they want to expand it to Russia too π πΏ
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
I am greek, and I believe that I have a strong national identity. But this alone does not mean that I would vote or act in any way, for the benefit of Greece, over the benefit for others, were it not just in my moral framework. I do not want federalization, for the simple reason that I do not trust specific electorates, such as german voters, french voters, swedish voters, italian voters, (greek voters!), spanish voters, to take decisions for Greece. Why? Because I believe that they systematically vote wrong, especially on the matter of immigration and demographics. If they voted in a manner I understand (and agree?), I would have nothing against federalization, although I believe that a common psychological identity should have to be created first, otherwise the federation would be unstable and disintegrate sometime in the future.
3
-
@mysterioanonymous3206
"meaning non-white people will never surpass the existing, white inhabitants. " - then why are neighborhoods in London, Paris and other cities inhabited by higher percentage of non white people than white people?
"white men are statistically most likely to marry outside their race, meaning over time the population gets.... more white." - no, this means that over time the population will become less white. Like in London, Paris, and other cities.
"with only 8000 specialist visa annually for non-EU persons" - this is 80k visas in 10 years. Considering demographics of Switzerland, no way all these non european immigrants came there legally, except if your govermment gave like 200k visas in 10 years or so.
"we have comparatively fewer asylum seekers from far away but again, they will be watered down genetically." - where do you base your assumption that they will become watered down genetically exactly?
"we may not be loud but our culture is absolutely strict and pervasive. If you stay, we will assimilate you sooner or later." - like in all EU countries then.
"Demographic projections are quite accurate and we'll be a little younger for a little longer than most of our neighbours." - and less swiss. And less white.
"then become more white over time " - but how do you know the immigration per year after 2023? Are you a medium?
"Meaning there is no "displacement"" - ππ
3
-
3
-
But what is so bad in forming a paneuropean race and state, at least in theory, and in the distant future? Should austrian, german, french, swiss, polish, dutch, swedish, czech, danish people never marry each other and make children for example? Perhaps I am wrong, but I do not see how this is fundamentally negative overall.
And what is so bad about balkan villages becoming depopulated?
I am greek, living in Greece, and currently Greece is being depopulated. But I believe that the world would not lose very much in this process, as Greece does not produce any high quality products or services. Countries like Greece could reach a population of less than 100-200k inhabitants without losing any GDP per capita. I am more worried about the underfertility problem of northern european countries such as Germany, France, UK, Netherlands, Poland, Austria, Hungary, Russia, Sweden, and of course the US.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@DJMacX
I am sorry but honestly, I did not quite understand what you say. I find that there are things in cultures better than in others, and vice versa. For example, I have nothing against american films and clothes. I like them. I do not see any country making better films and clothes than the US right now. If there are beautiful things in a culture, like the Krampus & St.Nicholas custom in Austria, it will survive time, and it will even spread to other countries, like Halloween and Christmas did (and now they celebrate them in places like China and Japan).
I can tell you something that I have not dared say to many people in my life: I have barely heard any music in my life aside from Mozart. I am not afraid if Mozart's music overtook the music culture in Greece, because Mozart's music is clearly more beautiful (in my personal taste of music at least) than greek music is.
"Cultural heritage is getting lost" - where exactly? I just don't see it. What I see, is just depopulation. And even this alone is not dangerous for the economy yet (in my very limited understanding at least).
"I think that everyone who loves his country does not want deserted villages" - I love my country, but I believe that it could be better for the world if it became empty. Not all countries and people are same. I certainly do not believe the same for Austria for example.
The question remains: how should we as the world move forward (in the best way possible)? I would not like to see countries-cages, where people from Germany or Czechia or Sweden or France cannot move to Austria and vice versa, in order to preserve what exactly? Some custom not worth preserving? Because this would seem too sad a world to me.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@user-hr2cf9kb9t
"greece has no means of balancing their economy, other than increasing its debt, for eternity" - how so? Greece has not increased its debt since 2012.
"you agree to the terms of increasing the debt, which is always decreased sovereignty for the Greek nation" - what do you mean exactly?
"I think they're net beneficiaries of EU money and they also balance their spending" - Greece was and is too a net beneficiary of EU money, and it is also balancing its spending. Right now at least.
"Whatever country has the most control of the EU, will determine the terms of new debt for other member states." - can't a government just borrow the money from banks?
"whoever controls the ECB will control where power is concentrated." - what power?
"when a state defaults, it will give up some of its sovereignty to the US central government. " - I am afraid you are wrong in this as well. Sovereignty on a sector of life, means that an institution has the abilitity to take decisions concerning this sector. Under this point of view, there is virtually no institution with 100% sovereignty. And why should there even be?
"So, the only way to make euro work long term, is for nations to give up their sovereignty." - Again, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovenia, Slovakia, Portugal, Spain all have the Euro, and are doing great. I don't see any necessity to give any sovereignty away. But if you insist, Greece can just leave the Eurozone, and let the others do as great as they are doing so far.
"But it is the only way to balance a currency between nations." - balance what exactly? I don't see anything needing balance in Estonia, Latvia, Portugal, Slovenia, Slovakia etc.
Which country are you from by the way?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@thodoriss3068 but I never dismissed geopolitics. How can I even?
"when it comes to Greece, the common agricultural policy has actually hurt us since it promotes produce that certain countries, like France for example, had a headstart and "prohibited" others that we had" - I am from Greece too. How does the EU's agricultural policy hurt Greece exactly? By giving farmers millions of french taxpayers' money for 30 years? It is not the fault of France if greek farmers bought expensive cars with these EU subsidies, instead of using them to become more competitive, like increase their production, make it more efficient, buy better harvesting equipment. And it is not the fault of France that there is perhaps not the best agricultural policies in Greece, that will render olive oil production more competitive, to be able to be sold in northern europe, just like italian and spanish olive oil can be sold there, to increase exports of Greece.
"For years the EU has shielded german automobile " - how? How did the EU do that? Again: the reason why countries like Greece have zero industrial production now, is not because the EU helps Germany, but because all greek governments did everything they could to kill greek industry. How did they do that? By overborrowing and then spending the money in increasing wages and pensions over the threshold of greek economy's competitiveness, by making under-optimal economic laws, and most importantly, by scheduling the greek state to pay off loans of the size of 20% of greek GDP at the same time, in 2010. Which is why Greece "bankrupted".
My point: you blame the wrong entity. Blame greek governments. Not EU politicians. Not german politicians. Not swedish politicians. Not icelandic politicians. Not american politicians. Not british politicians. Yes, I know. They all belong to the same secret political organization. But that does not change the fact that german politicians did nothing wrong to Greece, except perhaps from accepting to lend it money.
To me it is funny that people will always go for "it must be the EU's fault that my country is poor" first and not at "it must be my country's governments' fault that my country is poor".
"Greece is routinely threatened with war if it decides to expand its sea border to 12 miles, as is our right under international law. " - it is not international law. Many countries, among them Turkey, have not signed this law. So why do you demand from Turkey to accept it?
"Russia is under unprecedented sanctions for these same things even though they have not done them to a member" - but Cyprus was not in the EU at the time of Turkey's invasion. If it were, you would see the EU sanctioning Turkey. But remember that there is no EU law that says "if X attacks an EU member, you must put Y, Z sanctions on them". Sanctions are applied whenever and wherever there is some agreement between EU countries. For example, if Turkey invades Greece, and Spain refuses to put sanctions on Turkey, there will be no sanctions on Turkey. The EU is not a national government. It has very limited authority (and it should have limited authority in my humble opinion).
"meanwhile turkey is still benefitting from its status as a member candidate." - how is Turkey benefiting exactly?
2
-
"so that the rest can sit laid back, keep underinvesting their military" - sorry, but are you refering to countries such as Germany, France, the Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark, Belgium, Austria and Italy who take a part of their taxpayers' money to give it to Poland to help it develop its infrastructure and other works faster?
And secondly, what "bodyguard" exactly are you talking about? Who is Poland protecting Europe from exactly? From what I know, Russia has no intentions to attack any EU member. Does Poland have the intention to attack Russia perhaps? (π)
2
-
@tubetotto
"are you suggesting those countries have then the right to treat other countries like colonies with slaves? " - of course not. I am suggesting that you cannot accuse these countries of not contributing enough to the world, when they are giving yearly big amounts of their taxpayers' money for Poland to develop.
"More than 90c from every Euro typically comes back" - why is Poland, Czechia, Slovakia and Hungary so much wealthier than countries like Belarus, Russia and Ukraine in your opinion?
"Poland is full of western-owned companies
From what I know, the only demand that Putin and his government has for the resolution of the war, is that Ukraine does not enter NATO, as it intended to do. Do you have any evidence suggesting that Russia will invade Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania or Poland just because they belong to NATO?
"US is looking to Europe to pull-up its sleeves" - pull up their sleeves and do what exactly?
Who is NATO protecting us from exactly?
Answer: noone. It is an instrument of the secret ideological organization that governs all our countries, to make life difficult to Russia. Why? Because Russia is governed by a different secret ideological organization.
So it is not meant to protect your country - it will if it is needed of course. But this is not its real purpose.
Evidence: my country is Greece. Who is NATO protecting Greece from? Who is NATO protecting Portugal and Iceland from?
2
-
@tubetotto
Yes, Greece has to maintain a relatively big armed forces, because it believes that the risk of war with Turkey is considerable. But Greece shares a long border with Turkey. Albania or Bulgaria or N.Macedonia do not need big armies.
So my question is, what does NATO offer to Greece?
Another question of mine is, what does NATO offer to Poland?
Another question: what does NATO offer to Germany, France, Spain, Italy, Bulgaria, Albania, Austria, Croatia, Czechia, Slovakia, Hungary, Sweden, Norway?
And most important question: why would Russia invade Poland?
2
-
@kaiserbauch9092 why not? why would Russia want to attack and/or annex any baltic country? If Russia did this, the next day 100% of Europe would change its attitude towards Russia, and the rest of the world too, with citizens (including myself) demanding from their governments zero collaboration with Russia.
Apart from that, why do you need to keep US NATO military targets. Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania could simply sign a defensive alliance treaty with Finland, Ukraine, Poland, Romania, and then I suppose you agree that an attack of Russia to any member of this alliance would have near 0% chance to happen.
And then no need for NATO telling Germany to increase its "defensive" expenditure, while Germany (and Poland and co.) pay 3 times the fossil fuels prices that people in the US pay (quite unfairly in my very humble opinion).
So I have in just 5 lines created a near 100% effective defensive mechanism against Russia (π), without the negativities that people like D.Trump as persident(s) would add to european peoples' lives. If D.Trump were to become president again, czech people would need to become poorer to finance NATO. And not to protect the Cz.Republic of course, but for the geopolitical reason above (to oust "anti-immigrationism" from Moscow and be able to force their people, pretty much what in my understanding happened after WW1 in Germany and Austria). Of course, I could be 100% wrong in this paragraph.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@ChillDudelD but of course there were polish people there in the beginning of the 19th century. I never doubted that. But the vast majority even in the 19th century, after immigration of polish people to Germany for centuries, were inhabited by 90% or so german people. I am talking about the german provinces just before 1945. East and West Prussia, Pommerania, Silesia. Yes, I know that polish people lived there already in 1945. But they were a very small minority of about 10% at most.
I do not find any evidence on the internet, from ethnic maps of 1945, that the area surrounding Lwiv was inhabited by polish people. What I see in the ethnic maps, is that it was inhabited by (at least majority) ukrainian people.
"these territories belonged to Poland longer than to any other country, be it Rus, Austro-Hungary, the Soviet Union or Ukraine." - yes. So? What is your point here? That they should be returned to Poland today in 2023 because of this? Almost the entirety of modern day Ukraine belonged to Poland-Lithuania for more time than it has belonged to the ukrainian state established in 1991. Should Ukraine be annexed again by Poland for this reason in your opinion?
Should Germany also invade Poland to annex the Prussias, Pommerania and Silesia for the exact same reason? Of course not.
But the situation in eastern Ukraine is different. There, people voted majority in favor for their territories to be annexed by Russia. To me, this 100% egitimizes Russia to annex them, and anyone who wants them to remain inside the Ukrainian state is just not a democratic person in my humble opinion, because they completely disrespect the will of the people living there. Don't you agree?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@kaiserbauch9092 while I agree with you that it actually is, or should be considered the fault of politicians that people (and I include myself in this) do not know what they are voting for, notice from your second paragraph that ultimately people will notice the result of the previous elections, namely that the green deal will cause a drop in GDP and GDP per capita, and if they do not like it, they will vote against it in the next elections anyways.
So what is exactly the problem, apart from a delay in understanding among the electorate?
And how does the EU disincentivize accountability? You say that politics is made in Brussels, which is geographically far from "the hearts and minds of average voters". But why is geographic distance between voter and policy making important? In the early 20th century, you needed 8h to go from Brno to Prague. Should people in the 20th c. say "decisions are made too far from Brno", therefore we should have a separate country within Czechoslovakia just for people near Brno? Should people living in the state of Washington or Montana say the same for Washington DC in the US? What about Russia? What about China? As it is well known, there is no perfect solution.
Also notice: voters in the 1990s thought and behaved differently than in 2023, also because of a difference in knowledge, caused by the coming of internet. My father, born in 1955 still believes that A.Merkel (whose name he barely knows) is still the chancellor of Germany, and knows nothing about the problems we are now concerned about. Both he and me are voters. So where exactly do "our collective heart and mind" lie? π
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@chico9805 so why hasn't your government deleted its membership in ECHR 2 years after it has left the EU?
"the political elite in Britain has implemented these measures without question, in direct opposition to the will of the British people. " - then why do the british people continue to vote for Conservatives and Labour?
"Despite our ostensible exit from the Union" - why ostensible? Is the UK obliged to maintain any EU law? It is not.
" we still remain beholden to it indirectly via the ECHR," - but the ECHR has absolutely nothing to do with the EU. Turkey, Serbia, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Kosovo, Ukraine, Moldova and Montenegro are its signatories too, but none are in the EU. Ah, also Switzerland, Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein.
"as our traitorous politicians seek to maintain this status quo. " - in this you are actually correct π
"Without the Union's interference in British sovereignty" - there is no interference in british sovereignty!
Is the EU also forcing the US, Australia, Canada and New Zealand to import less beautiful immigrants I wonder?π
2
-
2