Max Power Posted January 2, 2019 Share Posted January 2, 2019 23 minutes ago, P.K. said: I don't believe a word of that. Not one word. Hence I coined the "the EU is run by Evil Goblins intent on world domination" because I believe it's just as unlikely. These "30 appointed overlords" wouldn't be the democratically elected leaders of democratic EU member states by chance? So not "appointed overlords" at all are they? Appointed overlords = European Commission. The only people authorised to propose legislation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Commission Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted January 2, 2019 Share Posted January 2, 2019 35 minutes ago, Max Power said: Appointed overlords = European Commission. The only people authorised to propose legislation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Commission Voted in. The "unelected" card loved and played exhaustively by brexiteers is getting just a little bit hackneyed I think.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted January 2, 2019 Share Posted January 2, 2019 31 minutes ago, P.K. said: Voted in. The "unelected" card loved and played exhaustively by brexiteers is getting just a little bit hackneyed I think.... I don't care whether they are appointed, elected or anointed by God. There should not be a supranational assembly/bureaucracy/ apparatus of state sitting above national governments. It's that easy to understand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted January 2, 2019 Share Posted January 2, 2019 1 minute ago, woolley said: I don't care whether they are appointed, elected or anointed by God. There should not be a supranational assembly/bureaucracy/ apparatus of state sitting above national governments. It's that easy to understand. One of our elected governments took us in. Democracy is that easy to understand. Of course, the EU workers rights directives are hated by the UK right wing press, which is to say pretty much all of it, which is why they promoted the lies spouted by Farage, Gove and Johnson. And it seems the right wingers on MF are no different. The EU is a democratic institution. It's that easy to understand.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freggyragh Posted January 2, 2019 Share Posted January 2, 2019 10 minutes ago, woolley said: I don't care whether they are appointed, elected or anointed by God. There should not be a supranational assembly/bureaucracy/ apparatus of state sitting above national governments. It's that easy to understand. Mate, you’re really going to hate the WTO when you find out how it works. I’m trying to picture your vision of the future with the U.K. operating outside the control of the EU, WTI, NATO, UN, IOC, WWF, FIFA, BIS, ITU, OECD, IMF, WHO, etc., and wonder what kind of drugs you need to take to understand this ‘sovereignty’ obsession. Maybe I’d get it if I could believe the U.K. had a really good democracy but the entire upper chamber of the U.K. parliament is unelected, you can’t sit in either chamber unless you swear that you’re a monarchist, the party system means being well-connected is more important than being either sober or honest, carpetbagging is a way of life (see Seabourne) as is expense fiddling and electoral fraud. On top of that political reporting, journalism and commentary is 95% controlled by the state and mega wealthy oligarchs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted January 2, 2019 Share Posted January 2, 2019 3 hours ago, woolley said: This is a stock response from the metrolibs to anyone who does not share their extremist views on pandering to every minority predilection that emerges from the closet. If someone disapproves of something then accuse them of being so inclined themselves. Some of the accusers might actually believe it; in some cases it might be so, but in essence it is intended to provoke an outraged reaction. It's becoming old hat now though. Been done to death. If you believe something is intended to produce an outraged reaction why react in an outraged way? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freggyragh Posted January 2, 2019 Share Posted January 2, 2019 (edited) 11 minutes ago, Declan said: If you believe something is intended to produce an outraged reaction why react in an outraged way? It wasn’t intended to produce an outraged reaction. It was intended to provoke the poster into considering what obsession and outrage over other people’s sexuality might say about themselves. Woolley, of course, my response to homophobia is a stock response, what other response is there? Edited January 2, 2019 by Freggyragh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Power Posted January 2, 2019 Share Posted January 2, 2019 1 hour ago, P.K. said: Voted in. The "unelected" card loved and played exhaustively by brexiteers is getting just a little bit hackneyed I think.... Quote The Commission operates as a cabinet government, with 28 members of the Commission (informally known as "commissioners").[4] There is one member per member state, but members are bound by their oath of office to represent the general interest of the EU as a whole rather than their home state.[3] One of the 28 is the Commission President(currently Jean-Claude Juncker) proposed by the European Council[5] and elected by the European Parliament.[6] The Council of the European Union then nominates the other 27 members of the Commission in agreement with the nominated President, and the 28 members as a single body are then subject to a vote of approval by the European Parliament.[7] The current Commission is the Juncker Commission, which took office in late 2014, following the European Parliament elections in May of the same year. Come on now P.K. you know how this works. Like any club, the chairman surrounds himself with people who are likeminded and owe him. They go through parliament en bloc and hey presto, a veneer of democracy has been achieved. The big problem is that those people are the only ones who can propose legislation! 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manximus Aururaneus Posted January 2, 2019 Share Posted January 2, 2019 In 1975, 17, 378, 581 eligible voters of the UK electorate expressed their democratic wish to remain in the (then) 'Common Market'. The referendum was not legally binding but the Government had promised to respect the result. Those 17,378,581 votes represented 67.23% of the vote and so, under the democratic process we stayed in. In 2016, 17,410,742 (a remarkably similar but nevertheless greater number) of eligible voters expressed their democratic wish to leave the EU. The referendum was again not legally binding, but again the Government had promised to respect the result. Those 17,410,742 votes represented 51.89% of the vote, the turnout was a remarkable 72.21% of registered voters making the 'Leave' vote the highest number of votes for anything that the UK electorate have ever voted upon. Democracy kept us in the CM in 1975, Democracy will take us OUT in 2019 - Yes, democracy is indeed that easy to understand. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freggyragh Posted January 2, 2019 Share Posted January 2, 2019 6 minutes ago, Max Power said: Come on now P.K. you know how this works. Like any club, the chairman needs a parliament to approve people who have been appointed by the elected governments of each member state, who might possibly be likeminded and owe him but probably only in the paranoid fantasies of people who trust in Sir Nigel. They go through parliament en bloc and hey presto, a democratic appointment processes for executive officers has been achieved. A big problem would be if those people are the only ones who can propose legislation, but thankfully there is a complex system of committees to oversee and advise, and ensure legislation is only applicable to agreed areas of pooled sovereignty. Fixed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paswt Posted January 2, 2019 Share Posted January 2, 2019 6 minutes ago, Freggyragh said: Fixed. Why is it that some posters think it acceptable to completely alter another members post then post "fixed" ? It's not clever it's despicable IMO Personally I think it is grounds for a banning . Just saying 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted January 2, 2019 Share Posted January 2, 2019 42 minutes ago, Declan said: If you believe something is intended to produce an outraged reaction why react in an outraged way? But I didn't. The comment was in measured words to flag up, explain and deconstruct the modus operandi of the subject post. It was in no way strident or "outraged". 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted January 2, 2019 Share Posted January 2, 2019 53 minutes ago, Freggyragh said: Mate, you’re really going to hate the WTO when you find out how it works. I’m trying to picture your vision of the future with the U.K. operating outside the control of the EU, WTI, NATO, UN, IOC, WWF, FIFA, BIS, ITU, OECD, IMF, WHO, etc., and wonder what kind of drugs you need to take to understand this ‘sovereignty’ obsession. Maybe I’d get it if I could believe the U.K. had a really good democracy but the entire upper chamber of the U.K. parliament is unelected, you can’t sit in either chamber unless you swear that you’re a monarchist, the party system means being well-connected is more important than being either sober or honest, carpetbagging is a way of life (see Seabourne) as is expense fiddling and electoral fraud. On top of that political reporting, journalism and commentary is 95% controlled by the state and mega wealthy oligarchs. None of the organisations you cite are heading towards a pan-continental state or "ever closer union" without borders, with one currency, a parliament, etc. You get the picture. But you did already, Freggy. You know what sovereignty is. You aren't thick! FIFA!!! 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted January 2, 2019 Share Posted January 2, 2019 44 minutes ago, Freggyragh said: It wasn’t intended to produce an outraged reaction. It was intended to provoke the poster into considering what obsession and outrage over other people’s sexuality might say about themselves. Woolley, of course, my response to homophobia is a stock response, what other response is there? Eh? What other response? Why would it necessarily say anything "about themselves" and their sexuality, and why would you assume that it does? It is a calculating angle to question the sexuality of an individual in the hope of provoking a snap intemperate response that can then be held up as proof of intolerance. A self-fulfilling prophecy. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted January 2, 2019 Share Posted January 2, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, Freggyragh said: It wasn’t intended to produce an outraged reaction. It was intended to provoke the poster into considering what obsession and outrage over other people’s sexuality might say about themselves. Woolley, of course, my response to homophobia is a stock response, what other response is there? It was a pretty fatuous comment to be honest. Even if there are still people who hate gays because they are secretly gay left, they’re only going to react one way. In any case you were replying to a post that was, if it was anything was, transphobic rather than a homophobic. Anyway whether you intend to provoke a reaction is immaterial because Woolley believed you did. He was triggered into a rant which branded people who support freedom of the individual and oppose bigotry as extremists. All the while claiming to be defending freedom of speech. And who were you replying to in the first place? Woody2 - I bet he’s delighted that you’ve enabled Woolley, yet again, to position a reasonable centrist position as extremism and the desire to change gender a predilection emerging from the closet. Your playing into their hands using stereotypes and tropes because that how they see the world. Edited January 2, 2019 by Declan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.