A minor exchange had on Con-home
Look, can someone at 'conservative home' explain to me what this 'Treaty' was?.Please.
Probably not, because I don't think the exact details of the treaty changes which were actually being proposed have been revealed.
But that doesn't mean that there were no proposals for treaty change, because clearly there were, and that Cameron didn't reject them, because clearly he did.
Thank you but the narrative seems to be saying 'treaty' yet here you suggest 'proposals' for a treaty.....
Which is it in these terms?
Proposals for treaty change, of course.
I can't see why some people are making such heavy weather of this.
Well, as a starter I would like to suggest because the majority of our 'parliamentarians' are lawyers and when framing 'law' an entire meaning can be altered by a comma......and the narrative of this issue seems clearly framed to me.
I would suppose it would depend on what the meaning of 'is' is.....if one gets the drift....and doesn't either inhale or impale....
Happy Christmas by the way....
Are you having pork for Christmas dinner?
As a P.S. I would like to add that Mr Cooper seems a decent enough sort. (In case this was seen as a personal attack).