Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
Turn on thread page Beta

Britain's "best friend" warns trade barrier if leaves EU watch

    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    Americans are typically rather good at understanding tiered power, being from a federal state.

    There's always a peculiar obsession among nationalists about where institutions are based. Does it really matter that the European Commission is in Brussels? Would the case for or against the EU be any less if it was based in Birmingham?
    It matters a lot when you consider;
    1) the concept of judicial precedence (their laws are more important and overrule any ones the British may want)
    2) That these leaders are not elected.
    3) These people are not even like us-it is bad enough giving so much power away to people in your own country-but to others? Are they REALLY going to act in your best interests? No, they will choose their own.

    Their is a peculiar obsession amongst Europhiles to give as much power away as possible to the least democratic organisations as possible. Ideally they will not even be in your country of course. The only logical place for your most powerful government to be-out of your country and unelected.

    The UK has so little power it cannot even control its own borders. That is the very definition of a nation-its borders. The EU has even controlled that.

    People should ask themselves this; would you vote to join the EU if we weren't already a part? The scaremongers will say but trade, etc. Well the Liberals and lefties also said that we would suffer if we didn't join the Euro-look how right they turned out there.
    The UK has so little power it cannot even control its own borders. Madness. Yes there is a problem with having a foreign government with foreign leaders that strip us of our powers and can enforce their will upon any state they please.
    If you want democracy and it follows out plan, allowed. If you want democracy and it doesn't follow our plan, democracy is denied. Just ask Greece.

    The only peculiar obsession is the one with having ever closer union to a failing economic area (Europe) and giving more and more of your powers away. Thank god we saw sense and ignored this lot with the Euro issue-I hope the same happens with the EU referendum.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by L i b)
    Americans are typically rather good at understanding tiered power, being from a federal state.

    There's always a peculiar obsession among nationalists about where institutions are based. Does it really matter that the European Commission is in Brussels? Would the case for or against the EU be any less if it was based in Birmingham?
    I'm not a nationalist. Straw man much?

    You've completely misunderstood my point -- my objection wasn't regarding the location of the unelected Commission. I simply named an analogous North American city that isn't in the United States. My objection has quite a bit more to do with the fact that it's unelected and supranational without the consent of the British people.

    If American government officials do understand it, they certainly haven't done a very good job of showing that they do. The complete lack of mention of anything other than the fact that the EU is a trading bloc in their repeated pro-EU interventions is indicative of ignorance of the issue.

    Not that your analogy would work anyway -- America's federal democracy (note: democracy, something we have very little of in the EU) and union is quite different to the EU.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by i<3milkshake)
    It matters a lot when you consider;
    1) the concept of judicial precedence (their laws are more important and overrule any ones the British may want)
    2) That these leaders are not elected.
    3) These people are not even like us-it is bad enough giving so much power away to people in your own country-but to others? Are they REALLY going to act in your best interests? No, they will choose their own.

    Their is a peculiar obsession amongst Europhiles to give as much power away as possible to the least democratic organisations as possible. Ideally they will not even be in your country of course. The only logical place for your most powerful government to be-out of your country and unelected.
    A sovereign state like the UK is a type of polity, a political unit. So too is the European Union. While, yes, I believe a polity should - on balance - probably have its administrative centre within its borders (I can think of at least one example that isn't the case), I don't care whether it's a "country" or not.

    The strange thing is that you object to unelected officials. Firstly, let's look at the UK: it has one directly elected chamber, one entirely unelected chamber, an executive that is not directly elected but appointed, an unelected judiciary, and an unelected head of state who is part of all three branches of government.

    Secondly, let's consider that the anti-EU lobby are the first to oppose democraticising the EU. Why? Because it removes member-state vetoes, it removes member-states' abilities to appoint key officials. You cannot criticise the EU for not meeting some standard of democracy when you and your ideological allies oppose that level of democracy and actively fight it whenever it arises.

    By virtue of being a European citizen, I share a political space with people from around the EU. I don't mind, therefore, if it's a French Commissioner or a Maltese Commissioner doing something - they ought to look out for the interests of all of the EU. Just as a UK Government minister is charged with representing the interests of the whole country, not just of his constituency or region.

    Yes there is a problem with having a foreign government with foreign leaders that strip us of our powers and can enforce their will upon any state they please.
    Ah yes, "foreigners" - your fellow European citizens. The problem I have with this is that you're expressly rejecting an identity built on civic bonds and replacing it with one based on nationalism. I don't like that.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    I'm not a nationalist. Straw man much?
    You certainly made a nationalist argument.

    You've completely misunderstood my point -- my objection wasn't regarding the location of the unelected Commission. I simply named an analogous North American city that isn't in the United States. My objection has quite a bit more to do with the fact that it's unelected and supranational without the consent of the British people.
    Then I don't really see the point of naming the city at all. The Commission is accountable to the European Parliament and exercises its authority over us by dint of a democratic referendum and the approval of the UK Parliament. I don't see anyone challenging the fact that the UK Parliament has never been given any sort of approval to govern: we take it for granted that it has that legitimacy.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by L i b)
    You certainly made a nationalist argument.
    Arguments have ideologies now? How nice. I suggest you stop reading things into it that are neither stated nor implied -- I don't have much patience for people who put words in my mouth and then try to coolly shake it off when it gets thrown back in their face.

    Then I don't really see the point of naming the city at all.
    Perhaps if you stopped trying to see what you'd like to see, you'd see the point. It is completely analogous to the situation with the EU -- my original post simply said that the Americans seem to be mistaken into thinking that the EU is simply an economic bloc and not the political straitjacket it really is. Americans would be very unlikely to tolerate it if a government in Ottawa, whose executive body is voted in by nobody, passed laws that overruled the laws of the elected United States government.

    But don't let the facts get in your way: it's more important to call me a nationalist than to actually read the post properly, after all.

    The Commission is accountable to the European Parliament and exercises its authority over us by dint of a democratic referendum and the approval of the UK Parliament.
    The last referendum in this country about Europe was in 1975 and the organisation whose membership was being voted on was nothing like the EU today. The UK Parliament had no right to hand away sovereignty and, given that you've made that argument, I suspect you're not a supporter of direct democracy and, therefore, it's best to end this conversation here.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    A sovereign state like the UK is a type of polity, a political unit. So too is the European Union. While, yes, I believe a polity should - on balance - probably have its administrative centre within its borders (I can think of at least one example that isn't the case), I don't care whether it's a "country" or not.
    The UK is composed of countries with a similar culture and economic situation. The EU is not. The minimum wage in the UK is three times higher than the average wage in Bulgaria/Romania, the most recent additions.
    It is an EU dream like yours that individual nations cease to exist; well I will never agree.

    The strange thing is that you object to unelected officials. Firstly, let's look at the UK: it has one directly elected chamber, one entirely unelected chamber, an executive that is not directly elected but appointed, an unelected judiciary, and an unelected head of state who is part of all three branches of government.

    So using your logic I am not happy with the House of Lords being unelected or a head of state being unelected; but get three groups of being unelected and that is all of a sudden good?
    I am against unelected bodies in general. Also, the EU is much more damaging than the Queen, so fight that battle first. "The strange thing si that you object to unelected officials". No, if my taxes are paying for their upkeep I want a say in who they are. Nothing strange there.


    Secondly, let's consider that the anti-EU lobby are the first to oppose democraticising the EU. Why? Because it removes member-state vetoes, it removes member-states' abilities to appoint key officials. You cannot criticise the EU for not meeting some standard of democracy when you and your ideological allies oppose that level of democracy and actively fight it whenever it arises.

    By virtue of being a European citizen, I share a political space with people from around the EU. I don't mind, therefore, if it's a French Commissioner or a Maltese Commissioner doing something - they ought to look out for the interests of all of the EU. Just as a UK Government minister is charged with representing the interests of the whole country, not just of his constituency or region.
    The only problem being that we are clearly seeing the UK continue with policies that are not in its best interests. And on top of that paying £55 million a day for this insult.


    Ah yes, "foreigners" - your fellow European citizens.
    So foreign then. A German is foreign, a Frenchman foreign, and so on. Then again EU nutters don't believe in the concept of individual nations, so I'm not surprised by your hilarious argument.
    The problem I have with this is that you're expressly rejecting an identity built on civic bonds and replacing it with one based on nationalism. I don't like that.
    Your arguement has consisted of trying to compare the US in the 1700's to the UK in 2015, some bizarre nonsense about other European not being foreigners, and some more strange talk about thinking of unelected officials as undemocratic. You also then try and argue the EU is more democratic than the anti-EU lobby;
    If this is the best arguments the pro-EU side can put up no wonder they have been so quiet recently. Plain lol.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    I'm not a nationalist. Straw man much?

    You've completely misunderstood my point -- my objection wasn't regarding the location of the unelected Commission. I simply named an analogous North American city that isn't in the United States. My objection has quite a bit more to do with the fact that it's unelected and supranational without the consent of the British people.

    If American government officials do understand it, they certainly haven't done a very good job of showing that they do. The complete lack of mention of anything other than the fact that the EU is a trading bloc in their repeated pro-EU interventions is indicative of ignorance of the issue.

    Not that your analogy would work anyway -- America's federal democracy (note: democracy, something we have very little of in the EU) and union is quite different to the EU.
    To be fair when someone comes up with this ridiculous comparison you know whatever else they say is just going to go rapidly down hill. I didn't think it was possible until today. What a comparison.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I don't see that securing a FTA with the US is relevant to the UK's future outside of the EU. The US only has 12 FTA's with individual countries plus NAFTA (Canada & Mexico) plus CAFTA (six central American countries) right now. Why would the UK need a separate agreement?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by moggis)
    As someone posted on the Times online under this story,

    " Ah.That explains the dearth of Chinese goods in American stores"

    Or words to that effect.
    Exactly. Try finding something that isn't made in China in the US; you'll have your work cut out for you.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Our government doesn't want to leave the European Union either. US's government probably want's to push the British public to vote in support of Europe.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hydeman)



    Americans would be very unlikely to tolerate it if a government in Ottawa, whose executive body is voted in by nobody, passed laws that overruled the laws of the elected United States government.

    But don't let the facts get in your way: it's more important to call me a nationalist than to actually read the post properly, after all.

    .
    Well, it is irrelevant if the commission is unelected. The same way, it is irrelevant that the cabinet is unelected. Both are chosen indirectly through democracy.

    If you want to ***** about one then ***** about the other as well.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    Arguments have ideologies now? How nice.
    Yes, yes they absolutely and obviously do. If you say "I think we should reduce immigration because I don't think racial groups should mix" that is a racist argument, for example. Pretty stark, but absolutely straightforwardly obvious.

    Perhaps if you stopped trying to see what you'd like to see, you'd see the point. It is completely analogous to the situation with the EU -- my original post simply said that the Americans seem to be mistaken into thinking that the EU is simply an economic bloc and not the political straitjacket it really is. Americans would be very unlikely to tolerate it if a government in Ottawa, whose executive body is voted in by nobody, passed laws that overruled the laws of the elected United States government.

    But don't let the facts get in your way: it's more important to call me a nationalist than to actually read the post properly, after all.
    And I pointed out you were starting a pointless debate about where a capital is located. The United States is a polity, its administrative centre is within the United States. Ditto the European Union. Yes, sometimes change is more difficult than selling what already exists, but it's precisely how both the EU and the United States were formed.

    The last referendum in this country about Europe was in 1975 and the organisation whose membership was being voted on was nothing like the EU today. The UK Parliament had no right to hand away sovereignty
    Yet it did, with an overwhelming popular mandate.

    You suggest that the European Community of 1975 was incredibly different, yet every argument you make is about the things that it had back then: direct effect of its law, legal primacy over the UK in areas of competence, free movement of workers, ever closer union... in fact, the most major change in the constitutional structure of the EU since then has been making its parliament directly elected in 1979 - something that did not happen when we voted overwhelmingly to be members.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by i<3milkshake)
    The UK is composed of countries with a similar culture and economic situation. The EU is not. The minimum wage in the UK is three times higher than the average wage in Bulgaria/Romania, the most recent additions.
    It is an EU dream like yours that individual nations cease to exist; well I will never agree.
    Nations don't exist. They're an attempt to shoehorn complex questions of individual culture and identity into blocks for political reasons. George Orwell referred to nationalism as "the habit of assuming that human beings can be classified like insects and that whole blocks of millions or tens of millions" - unfortunately human beings are infinitely more complex than that - our identities are overlapping, our cultures are mixed and constantly changing.

    I don't care about cultural differences. It is particularly mental to hear British people claim that cultural differences will somehow disappear in a puff of smoke as a result of political integration - did that happen with English, Scottish or Irish identity by your reckoning? I doubt it.

    You refer to the economic differences. Yes, indeed, which is why we shouldn't share a currency with Romania and Bulgaria and we should work to bring economic convergence across the EU, as already happens.

    So using your logic I am not happy with the House of Lords being unelected or a head of state being unelected; but get three groups of being unelected and that is all of a sudden good?
    I am against unelected bodies in general. Also, the EU is much more damaging than the Queen, so fight that battle first. "The strange thing si that you object to unelected officials". No, if my taxes are paying for their upkeep I want a say in who they are. Nothing strange there.
    You're not only calling for abolishing the monarchy and House of Lords, but for the complete overhaul of our system of government. Even if we didn't have a monarchy or Lords, we'd still have an executive that is not directly elected.

    By the sounds of it, you want to abolish Britain too, or at the very least entirely destroy our constitution. Yet strangely enough, I'm the one being unpatriotic?

    Your arguement has consisted of trying to compare the US in the 1700's to the UK in 2015
    Not trying, doing. Do you have any coherent problem with it?

    you also then try and argue the EU is more democratic than the anti-EU lobby
    No, I pointed out the anti-EU lobby are utter hypocrites for criticising the EU's lack of direct democratic accountability while opposing every measure that would make it more democratically accountable.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DorianGrayism)
    Well, it is irrelevant if the commission is unelected. The same way, it is irrelevant that the cabinet is unelected. Both are chosen indirectly through democracy.

    If you want to ***** about one then ***** about the other as well.
    Quite. It's a strange conception that everything that is wrong with the EU (even when they oppose putting it right) is an argument against its existence, yet the UK's imperfections are somehow things to be moderately reformed in due course rather than existential problems for our state.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    Nations don't exist.
    Sorry i just started laughing right here and couldn't stop. "No such thing as nations" oh my
    They're an attempt to shoehorn complex questions of individual culture and identity into blocks for political reasons. George Orwell referred to nationalism as "the habit of assuming that human beings can be classified like insects and that whole blocks of millions or tens of millions" - unfortunately human beings are infinitely more complex than that - our identities are overlapping, our cultures are mixed and constantly changing.

    I don't care about cultural differences. It is particularly mental to hear British people claim that cultural differences will somehow disappear in a puff of smoke as a result of political integration - did that happen with English, Scottish or Irish identity by your reckoning? I doubt it.

    You refer to the economic differences. Yes, indeed, which is why we shouldn't share a currency with Romania and Bulgaria and we should work to bring economic convergence across the EU, as already happens.



    You're not only calling for abolishing the monarchy and House of Lords, but for the complete overhaul of our system of government. Even if we didn't have a monarchy or Lords, we'd still have an executive that is not directly elected.

    By the sounds of it, you want to abolish Britain too, or at the very least entirely destroy our constitution. Yet strangely enough, I'm the one being unpatriotic?



    Not trying, doing. Do you have any coherent problem with it?



    No, I pointed out the anti-EU lobby are utter hypocrites for criticising the EU's lack of direct democratic accountability while opposing every measure that would make it more democratically accountable.
    No such thing as nations-oh that is a classic. I know TSRis known for being full of the loony left but my word that is great.
    Thank god in the real world people voted Tory and will give us an EU referendum. I mean I'm glad the vast majority of the population, agree or disagree with the EU, still manage to see that different nations do exist for legitimate reasons
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    No such thing as nations-oh that is a classic. I know TSRis known for being full of the loony left but my word that is great.
    The loony left? I'm a member of the Conservative Party, you dolt. I've attended every national conference since 2010; I leaflet, I canvass, I was secretary of my local branch a couple of years ago. Believe it or not, plenty of people on the liberal centre-right have very little time for collectivist ideologies like nationalism.

    Loony left, indeed...
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    Mate, you can't even master the quote function on a forum after several attempts. I think you'd better leave sociology to the folk with more than two brain cells to rub together.
    What entertains me is that you can't form a coherent argument against what I've said.



    The loony left? I'm a member of the Conservative Party, you dolt. I've attended every national conference since 2010; I leaflet, I canvass, I was secretary of my local branch a couple of years ago. Believe it or not, plenty of people on the liberal centre-right have very little time for collectivist ideologies like nationalism.

    Loony left, indeed...
    You don't believe in nations. Speak to anyone in real life, you know, off a keyboard and they will laugh at you. Not counter what you said? I just started laughing when you compared 1700's America to 2015 Britain and gave plenty of counters. You just refused to see it. You then managed to move on from that epic low point to the comedy gold; "no such things as nations" oh hilarious. The dolt is the person who doesn't believe in nations and thinks that the unification of America can compare to the EU today
    Oh classic. The dolt is the one hasn't yet realised the differences between the USA hundreds of years ago and the whole of Europe today.

    Loony indeed. You act all high and mighty yet don't see the difference between the United States in the 1700's and the EU today. Forget how the world and technology has changed-just in terms of geography. For someone who can come up with hilarious arguments like that, followed by the "so such thing as nations" punchline, you are remarkably full of yourself. I mean you are a near thirty year old man on a student forum and after over 40,000 posts here you are, still bringing in the lols

    Believe it or not, plenty of people on the liberal centre-right have very little time for people who think the US in the 1700's is comparable to the EU today, thinks countries don't exist (different languages, different cultures, different economies, different levels of affluence and deveopment, yeah all the same NOT) and then somehow believes that there are no counters to their incredible argument. No coherent argument formed? If you could rub two brain cells together maybe you could see it right on the first page.
    Thirty years old on here;
    http://www.quickmeme.com/img/7c/7c88...adcdb41897.jpg

    EDIT; Looking back I am wrong. There are no such things as countries. I just looked at a map and I mean if the US in the 1700's can be compared to today why not go further back? Pangea was asingle continent, no reason why we can't do that again?
    http://eatrio.net/wp-content/uploads...d4942856e7.gif
    No. Sarcasm. I don't subscribe to your hilarious no nations rubbish. Look how badly the Eurozone is suffering due to having different economies (Greece and Germany, etc) all following the same monetary policy (interest rates, currency exchange for example). Look how bad they are suffering and you want to follow this no nations approach? Lol. I have to give you credit you are sticking to your guns here. I mean yeah, sure, the economy of Europe as a whole today, the movement of people and the moment of capital as well, is just so simialr to...1700's USA.
    Oh dear lord. Classic.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by i<3milkshake)
    You don't believe in nations. Speak to anyone in real life, you know, off a keyboard and they will laugh at you.
    I'd prefer to speak about sociology with people who actually have a passing interest and preferably have at least read a bit about what they're talking about.

    The fact that you cannot conceive of an argument against something you've barely given a moment's serious thought, and offer nothing in return other than personal attacks, marks you out as a fool.

    The dolt is the person who doesn't believe in nations and thinks that the unification of America can compare to the EU today
    Of course it can compare to the EU: it is a modern example of relatively free societies electing to pool sovereignty for the greater good of each part. You're refusing to learn the lessons either of social science or history.

    You repeatedly say they are different: yes, of course there are differences between the 18th century and the 20th century - the onus is on you to explain how these differences are relevant. That is how we make valid comparisons.



    Believe it or not, plenty of people on the liberal centre-right have very little time for people who think the US in the 1700's is comparable to the EU today
    You can compare anything you like - what matters is what is similar and what is different.


    thinks countries don't exist (different languages, different cultures, different economies, different levels of affluence and deveopment, yeah all the same NOT)
    Sigh...

    Right, this is the nearest thing you've got to engaging in actually discussing the issue rather than repeating yourself and engaging in logical fallacies. So here goes.

    To reject the idea of nations (the term "country" is used in several different ways - they are not synonyms) is not to reject the existence of language. Language has little to do with nations: most nationalists will happily concede different languages can exist within a nation.

    Different economies and different levels of development are, again, clearly neither here nor there: economic harmonisation goes beyond national borders (a Scots nationalist, for example, would often point out the similarities between the Scottish and English economies rather than their differences) and even within any national community there are clearly disparities in wealth and development. The economies of American states, Canadian provinces and even individuals within a proposed "nation" are clearly quite distinct.

    Culture is the one thing that you can hold to, but the essential problem with nation-theory is that it is based on a generalisation: that nations - millions of people, we're supposed to contend - are cultural homogeneous, when they are clearly not. Cultures vary, not even between regions, counties and cities, but between individuals. There is often an attachment among political nationalists to an "orthodox" culture - but that shows the weakness of their generalisation rather than its strength (and quite often is an idealised culture rather than the everyday cultural experience of the majority).

    So what's left? Identity is often the most important attribute advocated by nationalists who can make a decent hash of arguing their case. To some extent, this is what theorists like Benedict Anderson mean by talking of "imagined communities". The problem at the heart of this is that identities are fluid, flexible and individual: I identify with x, y and z (often in a completely different way to my neighbour) - which is my "nation"? Is it different from his? The reality of it all is that you cannot build a consistent theory of individual identity on a generalised theory, nor can you attach absolutes to a continuum.

    This is why nationalism ends up being an ideology of division and conflict. Go to Northern Ireland - speak to people who are actually within a shared political community, work alongside one-another, live close to one-another. One will say he is of one nation, the other of another - and the only way to resolve their conflict, ultimately, is a sectarian headcount or by use of force. The same problem has been repeated in conflicts around the globe, and is little changed from any other tribal, identity-based conflict.

    In short, it's a lot of rubbish - and very dangerous rubbish at that.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)



    Ah yes, "foreigners" - your fellow European citizens. The problem I have with this is that you're expressly rejecting an identity built on civic bonds and replacing it with one based on nationalism. I don't like that.
    So why not global government then? Why put any borders up anywhere? I could use your logic to argue that Europe is nationalist and inward looking by refusing to enter a political union with countries to the east. Or even north Africa. Fact is, people are tribal and identity and tribe matters to them. Why should this seemingly arbitrary, selective and derogatory charge of nationalism be made at people who want the sovereignty of their nation back. No-one tells the Japanese they should be integrated with China, or the Mexicans or Canadians with the USA. It just is that this one is an argument with more vested interests and power behind it, (hence it becomes received wisdom) including people with the UK who don't want it to be sovereign. Total double standard.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SaucissonSecCy)
    So why not global government then? Why put any borders up anywhere?
    To some extent, it exists in the form of the United Nations. Obviously it's about as weak as things get in its influence, barring the Security Council, but it's still there.

    I don't think greater centralisation could work practically while economies are so divergent, development in some areas is especially poor and we are still seeing conflicts around the world. That does not mean we should not work towards greater international co-operation when we can however.

    It's realising an ideal of co-operation and making some progress. Just because the ultimate embodiment of that will never happen does not mean it is not a legitimate aspiration. It's a bit like saying because we cannot end war we should not work for a more peaceful world.

    I could use your logic to argue that Europe is nationalist and inward looking by refusing to enter a political union with countries to the east. Or even north Africa.
    I have nothing against, say, Turkey joining the EU at some point - assuming they get a lot of things in order first. I think that process would be positive for us, and positive for them too.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: November 8, 2015
Poll
“Yanny” or “Laurel”
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.