If the move would be of interest to the EU, then unless they are completely politically inept, can these officials not see how saying it would require ECJ oversight before an election risks it being eliminated from Labour policy?
It gives a free attack point for the Tories and couldn’t be a bigger face palm - for anyone actually interested in it, of course.
New dead horse just dropped.
Vascular + lymphatics.
I can’t tell if there are nerves in there as - despite a degree in neuroscience - I have zero knowledge of neuroanatomy.
I legit did this after a date once, though in my defence she asked me in for green tea and I don’t like green tea lol.
She started to wonder if I was just very friendly and gay after that.
Fortunately I clarified the issue by marrying her.
I’m a Brit and I know exactly what they mean by a nike tech twink - and that’s the first time I’ve ever heard the phrase.
See, I have this… but I don’t have ADHD. I’m pretty sure. I think.
I feel like you took my comment to be a critique of the EU’s position, which is not what I was trying to say at all.
I presume that such an agreement would be in the EUs interest - hence the expression of such. Public clarification at this stage of the ‘cost’- as you put it - is a great way to take it off the official policy booklet. Which doesn’t make sense to me.
I am aware that UK politics is stupid. I live here.