The EU: In, out, shake it all about.... (162 Viewers)

[Astute]

I just answered you when you asked what does that mean? with 'exactly what it says'.

I am saying the same as all other news outlets. Or have you found something different?

So is every news outlet wrong and Martcov who has lived in Germany for the majoriry of his life right?

 

---

[Astute]

Merkel was not keen on it. She didn't slam it though.

Do you slam everything that you don't want?

If she wants to keep a hold of power she will have to relent. Otherwise it will be a minority coalition government or another election.

Another thing in what he wants is the rights for anyone at all who has settled in the EU to be able to bring in all of their families. Merkel is not for that either. Letting in the million or however many it was cost her a lot of votes. Letting them bring in all of their families would cause her even more damage.

 

[Astute]

You started ignoring me when you said Juncker has announced an EU army and I said he just said it is not on the cards. You kept posting him saying it is not on the cards saying that constitutes an announcement that it is on the cards.

It will be once reforms can be made and the countries still in the EU can't veto it as they won't even get a vote.

 

[Grendel]

Lol Martcov thinks federalism and reduced powers of individual parliaments is the way to go. When that was ever suggested in the referendum it was dismissed as scaremongering. Martcov is so out if touch he doesn’t realise the damage that would have done to the campaign.

 

[martcov]

It will be once reforms can be made and the countries still in the EU can't veto it as they won't even get a vote.

Depending on what powers are given to the parliament. May or may not be.

 

[martcov]

Lol Martcov thinks federalism and reduced powers of individual parliaments is the way to go. When that was ever suggested in the referendum it was dismissed as scaremongering. Martcov is so out if touch he doesn’t realise the damage that would have done to the campaign.

Now that Britain is not there these things can be discussed. Britain blocked these discussions. Brexit has opened the discussions. Good. Let’s here more suggestions.

 

[Astute]

Depending on what powers are given to the parliament. May or may not be.

A slight admission. We are getting there.

All reforms to the EU are.not votable. Agree or leave. Then the reforms come in.

 

[martcov]

Do you slam everything that you don't want?

If she wants to keep a hold of power she will have to relent. Otherwise it will be a minority coalition government or another election.

Another thing in what he wants is the rights for anyone at all who has settled in the EU to be able to bring in all of their families. Merkel is not for that either. Letting in the million or however many it was cost her a lot of votes. Letting them bring in all of their families would cause her even more damage.

That’s her calculation, but the greens also want the families to come in order to help integration. SPD is not alone and it is not so one sided.

 

[martcov]

A slight admission. We are getting there.

All reforms to the EU are.not votable. Agree or leave. Then the reforms come in.

No. He said this has to be discussed before voting. Not after.

 

[Astute]

Now that Britain is not there these things can be discussed. Britain blocked these discussions. Brexit has opened the discussions. Good. Let’s here more suggestions.

So agree to having reforms without having a say in the matter or leave. What a discussion.

At least we know why they are giving us such a hard time. They are trying to put all the countries in the EU leaving when given the choice?

 

[Astute]

No. He said this has to be discussed before voting. Not after.

What voting? There won't be any. He said discussed with parliament and then implemented. France has been after it. Juncker wants it. Merkel doesn't want it but wants to hold on to power. And she is getting pressurised into getting the leadership fiasco sorted out.

 

[martcov]

So agree to having reforms without having a say in the matter or leave. What a discussion.

At least we know why they are giving us such a hard time. They are trying to put all the countries in the EU leaving when given the choice?

No. He said we will write a convention giving the powers which will be voted on. Those who vote no leave. That is when it will be decided, not when they are through. If an army is not in the plan it won’t happen.

They are not giving us a hard time. They gave us a list of priorities to be negotiated.

Now we go on to trade.

We are gone and nobody is interested. Our problems of Ireland and loans etc. don’t apply to the non donor countries.

 

[Astute]

No. He said we will write a convention giving the powers which will be voted on. Those who vote no leave. That is when it will be decided, not when they are through. If an army is not in the plan it won’t happen.

Where did he say this then? I have shown enough times that it wasn't what he said. They agree to losing their right to vote or leave the EU. How can that be a vote?

And they do want an EU army. This will make sure they get one.

 

[martcov]

Where did he say this then? I have shown enough times that it wasn't what he said. They agree to losing their right to vote or leave the EU. How can that be a vote?

And they do want an EU army. This will make sure they get one.

Where did he say this then? I have shown enough times that it wasn't what he said. They agree to losing their right to vote or leave the EU. How can that be a vote?

And they do want an EU army. This will make sure they get one.

Here:

„The drafting process of such a constitutional treaty, Schulz said, should involve citizens across the Continent. Once drafted, it would “be presented to the member states, and those who are against it will simply leave the EU,” he said, adding that Poland was already systematically undermining European values and Hungary was increasingly isolating itself.“

In other words discussions first and then a vote on powers. Then the EU parliament would have to debate and legislate. The second chamber of national representation with majority voting would be a check as with the Lords or Senate.

He also said the EU should not get involved in local and national issues. Which means no carte blanche got an EU government. He mentioned European problems such as immigration and terrorism as an example of the powers that could be given.

An EU army is probably inevitable as we cannot rely on being part of US foreign policy ( turn the television on if you don’t know what I mean ). The remote is under your Daily Express;-)

But all we have now is a Defence Union- not an army. 24 countries signed up to that today. So it won’t happen tomorrow and it won’t happen without consent. Even with majority voting.

A power to create an army has not been mentioned.

 

[Captain Dart]

Where did he say this then? I have shown enough times that it wasn't what he said. They agree to losing their right to vote or leave the EU. How can that be a vote?

And they do want an EU army. This will make sure they get one.

F***ing morass voting in the EU, my head hurts reading that..

Weighting of votes in the Council
In the case of most EU legislation, the Council of the European Union decides by qualified majority, i.e. the ordinary legislative procedure. In some areas of EU legislation, the Council acts by unanimity. Furthermore, procedural decisions are taken by a simple majority (15 out of 28 EU countries in favour).

Until 1 November 2014, the EU countries with the largest populations had 27 to 29 votes, medium-sized countries seven to 14 votes and small countries three or four votes. A decision required at least 260 out of 352 votes to be adopted.

On 1 November 2014, the rules for establishing a qualified majority changed (Article 16 of the Treaty on European Union). For a proposal by the Commission or the EU's High Representative to be adopted, a qualified majority is reached if two conditions are met:

1. 55 % of the members of the Council vote in favour (i.e. 16 out of 28); and
2. the members of the Council voting in favour represent EU countries representing at least 65 % of the total EU population.

This is known as the ‘double majority’ rule. A blocking minority must include at least four EU countries.

When the Council votes on a proposal not coming from the Commission or the High Representative a decision is adopted when:

• at least 72 % of Council members vote in favour and
• they represent at least 65 % of the EU population.

Until 31 March 2017, EU countries may still request a vote using the previous rule for qualified majority voting. In addition, they may request the application of the ‘Ioannina II compromise’ (see Declaration No 7 annexed to the Lisbon Treaty). This allows a group of countries to demonstrate their opposition to a text even if the group is not large enough in number to constitute a blocking minority.

 

[martcov]

F***ing morass voting in the EU, my head hurts reading that..

He wants to replace that along with the commission, with a second chamber. It would have to be weighted to take population into account imo.

 

[Captain Dart]

He wants to replace that along with the commission, with a second chamber. It would have to be weighted to take population into account imo.

Sad, you really don't get it do you..

 

[martcov]

Sad, you really don't get it do you..

I get what Martin Schultz says, but I haven’t got a clue what you are trying to prove. Maybe you should try explaining instead of playing games.

 

[martcov]

Sad, you really don't get it do you..

I understand that your head hurts. Complicated for you is it?

 

[Astute]

Here:

„The drafting process of such a constitutional treaty, Schulz said, should involve citizens across the Continent. Once drafted, it would “be presented to the member states, and those who are against it will simply leave the EU,” he said, adding that Poland was already systematically undermining European values and Hungary was increasingly isolating itself.“

In other words discussions first and then a vote on powers. Then the EU parliament would have to debate and legislate. The second chamber of national representation with majority voting would be a check as with the Lords or Senate.

He also said the EU should not get involved in local and national issues. Which means no carte blanche got an EU government. He mentioned European problems such as immigration and terrorism as an example of the powers that could be given.

An EU army is probably inevitable as we cannot rely on being part of US foreign policy ( turn the television on if you don’t know what I mean ). The remote is under your Daily Express;-)

But all we have now is a Defence Union- not an army. 24 countries signed up to that today. So it won’t happen tomorrow and it won’t happen without consent. Even with majority voting.

A power to create an army has not been mentioned.

So yet again where does it say that there will be a vote?

 

[Astute]

He wants to replace that along with the commission, with a second chamber. It would have to be weighted to take population into account imo.

That then won't get any kind of vote for anything to do with EU reforms. They will have given up any right to vote or will have left the EU.

Which part of this don't you understand?

 

[Astute]

I get what Martin Schultz says, but I haven’t got a clue what you are trying to prove. Maybe you should try explaining instead of playing games.

I have explained several times. You have tried to twist it each time.

 

[Astute]

I understand that your head hurts. Complicated for you is it?

The truth looks complicated to you as it isn't good for the residents of most of the EU. Good for Germany though.....unless eventually they go against Germany's wishes.

 

[martcov]

So yet again where does it say that there will be a vote?

Those that are against it will leave. I call that voting against it. You can call it deciding against it. Whatever. There is a choice. Take it or leave it.

 

[martcov]

The truth looks complicated to you as it isn't good for the residents of most of the EU. Good for Germany though.....unless eventually they go against Germany's wishes.

Say you. A Parliament of MEPs elected by all EU citizens not voting on national lines won’t mean a German dictatorship. The opposite actually.

 

[martcov]

That then won't get any kind of vote for anything to do with EU reforms. They will have given up any right to vote or will have left the EU.

Which part of this don't you understand?

That they have given up the right to vote. An elected parliament implies people voting. A second chamber of countries representatives with majority voting implies voting

Which part involves not voting?

 

[martcov]

I have explained several times. You have tried to twist it each time.

You have repeatedly posted links confirming what I have said, but apparently don’t realise what you are saying. I keep explaining things to you actually.

 

[Astute]

You have repeatedly posted links confirming what I have said, but apparently don’t realise what you are saying. I keep explaining things to you actually.

Have you bollocks. You denied everything. You even tried to blame it on lost in translation until I reminded you that he also translated it himself. You tried to blame it on an anti EU rag until I posted links from the Guardian and America.

And now you have the nerve to say that you have the right to vote on losing your right to vote on constitutional changes or leave the EU. That is nothing short of blackmail.

You think that 52/48 was a vote too close to take us out of the EU. Do you think it would have been so close if we would have known what was planned befire we voted? I for one would have voted leave. Those I know who voted remain would have voted leave or are unsure. Not one has said they would have still voted remain for sure.

Look at hiw many times I said I saw something like this happening in the future. Look at the abuse I got each time. Nobody would vote on losing their vote on something as important as this it was constantly said.

So you either leave or have them take over most of your power. They even want to take over your tax rates. They will make your policies for you. They will have a finance minister that will take over your finances. They will have one person steering the ship EU enterprise as said by Juncker.

You have lived in Germany for 36 years. I'm in no doubt that you see yourself as German and not British. You want what is best for Germany and not the UK.

And niw we can see why German companies are willing to lose billions of euros and thousands of jobs for what is best for the EU. They are close to taking over the EU.

You have constantly said that us leaving means we can't stop them from bringing in changes in the EU. Look again. We could have given up the right to vote or we could have left. The same choice as the others.

Now it is back to you to try and twist the truth again. But I have already posted links showing all of this.

One more thing Mart. If you are so right when all the evidence shows differently where have those people gone who have backed most of what you have said? They are as shocked as me that it has come out so soon. Maybe shocked as it sounded too far fetched.

 

[martcov]

Have you bollocks. You denied everything. You even tried to blame it on lost in translation until I reminded you that he also translated it himself. You tried to blame it on an anti EU rag until I posted links from the Guardian and America.

And now you have the nerve to say that you have the right to vote on losing your right to vote on constitutional changes or leave the EU. That is nothing short of blackmail.

You think that 52/48 was a vote too close to take us out of the EU. Do you think it would have been so close if we would have known what was planned befire we voted? I for one would have voted leave. Those I know who voted remain would have voted leave or are unsure. Not one has said they would have still voted remain for sure.

Look at hiw many times I said I saw something like this happening in the future. Look at the abuse I got each time. Nobody would vote on losing their vote on something as important as this it was constantly said.

So you either leave or have them take over most of your power. They even want to take over your tax rates. They will make your policies for you. They will have a finance minister that will take over your finances. They will have one person steering the ship EU enterprise as said by Juncker.

You have lived in Germany for 36 years. I'm in no doubt that you see yourself as German and not British. You want what is best for Germany and not the UK.

And niw we can see why German companies are willing to lose billions of euros and thousands of jobs for what is best for the EU. They are close to taking over the EU.

You have constantly said that us leaving means we can't stop them from bringing in changes in the EU. Look again. We could have given up the right to vote or we could have left. The same choice as the others.

Now it is back to you to try and twist the truth again. But I have already posted links showing all of this.

One more thing Mart. If you are so right when all the evidence shows differently where have those people gone who have backed most of what you have said? They are as shocked as me that it has come out so soon. Maybe shocked as it sounded too far fetched.

Firstly. I have constantly pointed out what was actually said, which is not denying anything.

Then comes „they“. Who are „they“?

We were part of they fit 40 years. We were in the top 3 countries.

You think that by making things more democratic people or countries would be giving up voting rights. What Schultz has suggested is ending veto rights on more things. He has said that after presenting the new system to the member countries they could decide to accept or not accept. They can leave if they don’t accept. This is all after consultations.

You then asked me why Merkel wanted to end veto rights with the implication that it was to get an advantage for Germany. I pointed out that it was Schultz‘ vision and that he was neither in the EU not in government. So he is not even part of „they“.

You now tell me that Merkel is against his idea. I agreed and added that the CSU were definitely against it as well. Also not „they“ in your meaning of the word.

You tried to tell me that Schultz said things that he didn’t say and that I didn’t know what he said. I did because I heard him say it in German and I have also read it in English.

I pointed out how the Telegraph turned his vision of a more democratic system into one word „Brussels“. This gets people like you jumping up and down and you don’t read any further.

You showed me a definition of Federal System, but I know what a federal system is as I live in one. Schock... Horror.... It is actually more democratic than the EU or UK.

German industry is not banking on the vision of an opposition politician being implemented by 27 countries within 8 years. And even if it happens no one loses any voting rights. The only thing would be the veto right on some as yet undefined subjects.

As for Juncker, or rather his successor, he would be out of a job as the commission would be abolished. Juncker wants that merged with the European Council, which is not the same as what Schulz wants. „They“ are not even of the same opinion, so how come you‘ve twigged the conspiracy?

Why are people schocked? Nothing has happened. Nothing will happen Short term, but the idea of a more democratic Europe working together is not a bad thing. Having a cohesive VAT and Corporation Tax, and cutting down on tax dodging by big companies is a necessary step. This will happen in the medium term. A European Defence Union is already happening. There is no EU army on the horizon, but that will come one day. Trump has shown what he thinks of NATO.

I am interested in a more democratic and cohesive EU. That is better for everyone. You have the Tories backed by the Brexit press to look after your interests. Viel Spaß.

 

[Captain Dart]

I understand that your head hurts. Complicated for you is it?

Sarcasm is lost on you which is not surprising given your posting record.

 

[Captain Dart]

Have you bollocks. You denied everything. You even tried to blame it on lost in translation until I reminded you that he also translated it himself. You tried to blame it on an anti EU rag until I posted links from the Guardian and America.

And now you have the nerve to say that you have the right to vote on losing your right to vote on constitutional changes or leave the EU. That is nothing short of blackmail.

You think that 52/48 was a vote too close to take us out of the EU. Do you think it would have been so close if we would have known what was planned befire we voted? I for one would have voted leave. Those I know who voted remain would have voted leave or are unsure. Not one has said they would have still voted remain for sure.

Look at hiw many times I said I saw something like this happening in the future. Look at the abuse I got each time. Nobody would vote on losing their vote on something as important as this it was constantly said.

So you either leave or have them take over most of your power. They even want to take over your tax rates. They will make your policies for you. They will have a finance minister that will take over your finances. They will have one person steering the ship EU enterprise as said by Juncker.

You have lived in Germany for 36 years. I'm in no doubt that you see yourself as German and not British. You want what is best for Germany and not the UK.

And niw we can see why German companies are willing to lose billions of euros and thousands of jobs for what is best for the EU. They are close to taking over the EU.

You have constantly said that us leaving means we can't stop them from bringing in changes in the EU. Look again. We could have given up the right to vote or we could have left. The same choice as the others.

Now it is back to you to try and twist the truth again. But I have already posted links showing all of this.

One more thing Mart. If you are so right when all the evidence shows differently where have those people gone who have backed most of what you have said? They are as shocked as me that it has come out so soon. Maybe shocked as it sounded too far fetched.

Saw a good comment on BBC HYS which rang true.. "Corporate elites have been trying to destroy democracy by tying us into trading blocs whose rules are made by unelected committees." more or less the way the EU system is set up to stymie the democratic voice, there are elections but they are carefully stage managed to prevent any groundswell in public opinion from deflecting the politicians.

 

[skybluetony176]

I see even American think tanks think we’ll struggle post brexit.

Fears grow across the Atlantic over Brexit

 

[Astute]

I see even American think tanks think we’ll struggle post brexit.

Fears grow across the Atlantic over Brexit

Kamal Ahmed. More pro EU than anyone on here. And it is about how America will do.

 

[Astute]

Firstly. I have constantly pointed out what was actually said, which is not denying anything.

Then comes „they“. Who are „they“?

We were part of they fit 40 years. We were in the top 3 countries.

You think that by making things more democratic people or countries would be giving up voting rights. What Schultz has suggested is ending veto rights on more things. He has said that after presenting the new system to the member countries they could decide to accept or not accept. They can leave if they don’t accept. This is all after consultations.

You then asked me why Merkel wanted to end veto rights with the implication that it was to get an advantage for Germany. I pointed out that it was Schultz‘ vision and that he was neither in the EU not in government. So he is not even part of „they“.

You now tell me that Merkel is against his idea. I agreed and added that the CSU were definitely against it as well. Also not „they“ in your meaning of the word.

You tried to tell me that Schultz said things that he didn’t say and that I didn’t know what he said. I did because I heard him say it in German and I have also read it in English.

I pointed out how the Telegraph turned his vision of a more democratic system into one word „Brussels“. This gets people like you jumping up and down and you don’t read any further.

You showed me a definition of Federal System, but I know what a federal system is as I live in one. Schock... Horror.... It is actually more democratic than the EU or UK.

German industry is not banking on the vision of an opposition politician being implemented by 27 countries within 8 years. And even if it happens no one loses any voting rights. The only thing would be the veto right on some as yet undefined subjects.

As for Juncker, or rather his successor, he would be out of a job as the commission would be abolished. Juncker wants that merged with the European Council, which is not the same as what Schulz wants. „They“ are not even of the same opinion, so how come you‘ve twigged the conspiracy?

Why are people schocked? Nothing has happened. Nothing will happen Short term, but the idea of a more democratic Europe working together is not a bad thing. Having a cohesive VAT and Corporation Tax, and cutting down on tax dodging by big companies is a necessary step. This will happen in the medium term. A European Defence Union is already happening. There is no EU army on the horizon, but that will come one day. Trump has shown what he thinks of NATO.

I am interested in a more democratic and cohesive EU. That is better for everyone. You have the Tories backed by the Brexit press to look after your interests. Viel Spaß.

Why do you keep on with losing your vote or leaving being democratic?

 

[martcov]

Saw a good comment on BBC HYS which rang true.. "Corporate elites have been trying to destroy democracy by tying us into trading blocs whose rules are made by unelected committees." more or less the way the EU system is set up to stymie the democratic voice, there are elections but they are carefully stage managed to prevent any groundswell in public opinion from deflecting the politicians.

Well if they are deflecting then it’s not working. BTW it’s public schoolboys, millionaires and hedge fund managers in the UK against the EU. Against NAFTA in the USA are billionaires, hedge fund managers and 3 of Trumps cabinet are Goldman Sachs ex employees and of course Bannon is ex Goldman Sachs. So,it sounds like you’ve been reading Breitbart under the bed sheets again.