The EU: In, out, shake it all about.... (273 Viewers)

[Grendel]

About as right as you.

No Tony you were hopelessly and embarrassingly wrong. You believed we left the ERM 2 years after rates rose to 15% - its up there with the Geoffrey Howe speech.

When wiki man guesses with no wiki he’s a lonely man.

 

---

[martcov]

Case closed - you and Tony are the best arguments on here to leave. Keep it going.

Why? Because I am not particularly interested in 1992?

 

[Sick Boy]

I was out celebrating reunification day. The end of communism in Germany. Pity some Tories and posters on here haven’t noticed that the USSR has gone. Some are stupid enough to compare communism with the EU. Noticeable that only leavers are that thick.

On here it's labelled as a neo liberal capitalist club one minute and the EUSSR the next

 

[Astute]

Migration has been going on for decades and is nothing new. There's also the issue with people living longer as well. I blame successive governments for not building affordable homes, personally.

Regardless of where theyve come from, whether it be the East or West, migration on the whole has been positive for the country and has assisted in areas such as the NHS.

Shall we compare migration and the numbers over the years?

Is migration a good thing for those who can't find a home to live in? And that includes those who have come here to live.

 

[Astute]

Wasted your vote if you voted leave on that basis.

A reply to a post of mine.

Then you say.....

I never said you did. And I see you’ve lost the argument again.

Argument? Not at all. I am an idiot for trying to have a debate with those who don't want one.

 

[Astute]

There were two hard investigations, both slammed the appointment, but they couldn’t find sufficient reason to reverse the decision

They have no right to reverse the decision. It is a watchdog without teeth.

The only ones who could reverse the decision are those who arranged and made the appointment.

So you don't think it is a problem that those who are in charge of the EU are bent?

 

[Astute]

No.

Why try to call it full employment then?

 

[martcov]

Why try to call it full employment then?

Because it virtually is. There are reasons for people not having a job when there actually enough vacancies. Regional differences being one. People are not prepared to move for a lot of reasons. Then there is lack of qualifications. There are lots of reasons, but unemployment will always be there. Have we ever gone below 2 or 3%?

 

[martcov]

They have no right to reverse the decision. It is a watchdog without teeth.

The only ones who could reverse the decision are those who arranged and made the appointment.

So you don't think it is a problem that those who are in charge of the EU are bent?

I don’t think it is a relevant reason for a country of 65 million people leaving the EU. Will we rejoin when the next big scandal hits Britain?

You are deliberately overplaying the appointment and seem to think that nothing similar happens behind closed doors in Whitehall.

You claim that every decision is taken like Selmayr‘s appointment which means that the EU is completely corrupt. It obviously isn’t the case as there was uproar in the EU Parliament about it and two enquiries into it.

You are using Selmayr as a red herring to distract from your main reason for wanting out, which is EU migrants, and you cannot disagree with the lack of tangible positives from Brexit.

 

[Sick Boy]

Shall we compare migration and the numbers over the years?

Is migration a good thing for those who can't find a home to live in? And that includes those who have come here to live.

So you have issues with all migration after the war, including those from the ex-colonies coming here? It's been going on for decades.

 

[martcov]

They have no right to reverse the decision. It is a watchdog without teeth.

The only ones who could reverse the decision are those who arranged and made the appointment.

So you don't think it is a problem that those who are in charge of the EU are bent?

The ombudsman is there to examine complaints and pass on the conclusions to the body complained against and the parliament. She found 4 cases of maladministration. These have been passed on and will be acted upon in the form of stronger regulations for the future. Maladministration is not necessarily criminal, which is why the appointment has not been reversed. The Commission says it doesn’t accept all points made by the ombudsman.

 

[martcov]

They have no right to reverse the decision. It is a watchdog without teeth.

The only ones who could reverse the decision are those who arranged and made the appointment.

So you don't think it is a problem that those who are in charge of the EU are bent?

The ombudsman is a referee and has limited powers. She had the same job in Ireland and it is not unusual for The ombudsman be limited In his or her powers. She reviewed the appointment and came to conclusions and based her recommendations on these.

„Maladministration
O'Reilly identified four big issues.

First, the commission failed to take measures to avoid a conflict of interest given Selmayr's involvement leading to the creation of the vacancy notice for deputy secretary general.

Second, it failed to follow rules of procedure in the composition of a committee for the selection of the deputy.

Third, the deputy post was not a genuine vacancy given it was used to springboard Selmayr.

Fourth, the retirement of the outgoing secretary general was kept secret and created an artificial urgency for his replacement.

She says the commission needs to develop a specific and separate appointment procedure for its secretary-general to prevent a repeat of this happening.

"The procedure should include publishing a vacancy notice, placing it on the agenda of the weekly commissioners' meeting and also including external experts in the consultative committee for the appointment," she said.“

All 28 commissioners voted for his appointment as deputy Secretary General, before he jumped into being Secretary General without any other candidate.

 

[skybluetony176]

A reply to a post of mine.

Then you say.....


Argument? Not at all. I am an idiot for trying to have a debate with those who don't want one.

Clearly the meaning of the word “if” is lost on you. Maybe that’s why you’re an idiot. Attention to detail clearly isn’t your strong point.

 

[martcov]

And yet again you come out with the line of it not being illegal. There are rules and regulations to be followed. None if it is covered by law. So it was impossible for a law to be broke. But every rule and regulation was broke.

These rules and regulations were broke by those who run the EU. Those who run the EU are the only ones who could do anything about it. But they didn't.

And my point has always been if they can do it so blatantly and still have nothing to worry about what else do they do? They have nobody to answer to. Yet you want the UK to be ruled by them.

A bit like someone wanting to be PM of the UK landing a top job and vehicle of propaganda? Nothing happened to him. Broke the code and used his propaganda platform whilst being paid 275000,00 £ for doing it. That’s more than Selmayr gets and this crook could become PM. But, it was only a code so that’s ok?

Boris Johnson breached ministerial code with Telegraph column return

 

[Astute]

You are deliberately overplaying the appointment and seem to think that nothing similar happens behind closed doors in Whitehall.

You claim that every decision is taken like Selmayr‘s appointment which means that the EU is completely corrupt. It obviously isn’t the case as there was uproar in the EU Parliament about it and two enquiries into it.

Overplaying the fact that those at the top of the EU broke all rules and regulations that they should have complied with?

Yes there was absolute uproar in the EU parliament. Everyone in the EU knew it was wrong and shouldn't have happened and needed reversing. The EU watchdog said exactly the same. Yet nobody could do anything about it.

Underplayed?

Yesterday you finally agreed that it was a scam.

Those who run the EU are bent. They do what they want to do and nobody can do anything about it. Full stop.

Can you explain to everyone why we should trust them?

 

[Astute]

Clearly the meaning of the word “if” is lost on you. Maybe that’s why you’re an idiot. Attention to detail clearly isn’t your strong point.

Caught you out being untruthful again I see.

'If you voted leave on that basis'

 

[Astute]

The ombudsman is a referee and has limited powers.

So who has any power to stop those at the top of the EU from breaking all rules and regulations again?

Not even thousands in the EU parliament being outspoken on the matter made any difference.

 

[Astute]

So you have issues with all migration after the war, including those from the ex-colonies coming here? It's been going on for decades.

Why lie or twist the truth?

So we had a massive amount of homeless in the Times you have just mentioned?

 

[skybluetony176]

Caught you out being untruthful again I see.

'If you voted leave on that basis'

Yes “IF”. What do you actually think “IF” means. You really are an idiot.

 

[Sick Boy]

Why lie or twist the truth?

So we had a massive amount of homeless in the Times you have just mentioned?

How am I lying or twisting the truth? Blaming people from other countries coming here to work for the homeless crisis really is low.

 

[martcov]

Overplaying the fact that those at the top of the EU broke all rules and regulations that they should have complied with?

Yes there was absolute uproar in the EU parliament. Everyone in the EU knew it was wrong and shouldn't have happened and needed reversing. The EU watchdog said exactly the same. Yet nobody could do anything about it.

Underplayed?

Yesterday you finally agreed that it was a scam.

Those who run the EU are bent. They do what they want to do and nobody can do anything about it. Full stop.

Can you explain to everyone why we should trust them?

I always agreed it was a scam, sham and annoying. You are making things up again.

How come to the conclusion that everyone in the EU is bent through one case that caused uproar in the EU?

We should trust them as least as much as we trust our politicians. More than e.g. Rees Mogg, BoJo and the ever bullshitting MEP, Farage.

 

[martcov]

So who has any power to stop those at the top of the EU from breaking all rules and regulations again?

Not even thousands in the EU parliament being outspoken on the matter made any difference.

It wouldn't have in the UK either.

 

[martcov]

So who has any power to stop those at the top of the EU from breaking all rules and regulations again?

Not even thousands in the EU parliament being outspoken on the matter made any difference.

They are upgrading the rules to make sure it cannot happen again. The existing rules didn't account for what happened - no other candidate. The vote for deputy was convincing = 28:0. Obtained by, maybe, offering benefits to commissioners, but it is difficult to argue against 28:0. That is a majority result which is within the rules.

 

[Astute]

Yes “IF”. What do you actually think “IF” means. You really are an idiot.

If for that reason means just that. For that reason.

Just the way you have constantly used words to insinuate things constantly.

 

[Astute]

How am I lying or twisting the truth? Blaming people from other countries coming here to work for the homeless crisis really is low.

Would you like to point out where I have blamed them?

This is typical of those on here desperate for us to stay in the EU. I explained clearly my thoughts. And have countless times. But you continue to try and twist everything I say.

Well done.

 

[Astute]

I always agreed it was a scam, sham and annoying. You are making things up again.

How come to the conclusion that everyone in the EU is bent through one case that caused uproar in the EU?

We should trust them as keast as much as we trust our politicians. More than e.g. Rees Mogg, BoJo and the ever bullshitting MEP, Farage.

Oh no you didn't. You had a go at me each time I used them words. You called it unfortunate.

 

[Astute]

They are upgrading the rules to make sure it cannot happen again. The existing rules didn't account for what happened - no other candidate. The vote for deputy was convincing = 28:0. Obtained by, maybe, offering benefits to commissioners, but it is difficult to argue against 28:0. That is a majority result which is within the rules.

Bollocks.

They put up another candidate. She pulled out 15 minutes after it was announced. So they made out Selmayr got it by default. Then she got a high up job with a massive wage for her troubles.

Never mind. Keep coming out with your excuses.




One more thing Mart.

You say they are upgrading the rules to stop it from happening again.

1, What is the use of having upgraded rules when they ignore rules and regulations?

2, Selmayr already has the job for life.

 

[skybluetony176]

If for that reason means just that. For that reason.

Just the way you have constantly used words to insinuate things constantly.

I think you may have issues either understanding the English language or you have issues with paranoia. Have you thought about buying a dictionary or seeking professional help.

 

[martcov]

Oh no you didn't. You had a go at me each time I used them words. You called it unfortunate.

No, I called it a scam and annoying. Never unfortunate.

 

[martcov]

Bollocks.

They put up another candidate. She pulled out 15 minutes after it was announced. So they made out Selmayr got it by default. Then she got a high up job with a massive wage for her troubles.

Never mind. Keep coming out with your excuses.




One more thing Mart.

You say they are upgrading the rules to stop it from happening again.

1, What is the use of having upgraded rules when they ignore rules and regulations?

2, Selmayr already has the job for life.

Not bollocks and I am not disputing that there was only one candidate for General Secretary.

1. they don’t ignore regulations. They are accused of maladministration this time. Which I agree with. But, to deduce that that means everybody ignores regulations is crazy.

2. Yes, and as it wasn’t illegal there are no legal reasons for taking it off him. No one is claiming that he is not able enough. So all they can do is make sure people cannot get around the regulations in future.

 

[martcov]

Oh no you didn't

Oh yes I did!

 

[Astute]

I think you may have issues either understanding the English language or you have issues with paranoia. Have you thought about buying a dictionary or seeking professional help.

No. I have a problem with liars and people who twist the truth to try and make a point.

 

[Astute]

No, I called it a scam and annoying. Never unfortunate.

Show me where you said scam then.

Annoying is such a hard word to use against such a blatant disregard for rules and regulations that those running the EU had.

 

[martcov]

Show me where you said scam then.

Annoying is such a hard word to use against such a blatant disregard for rules and regulations that those running the EU had.

I am not going to research that. I know what I said, and yes it is annoying. I am not rabid, so when I say annoying, a sham and a scam that is as hard as you will get.

 

[Astute]

Not bollocks and I am not disputing that there was only one candidate for General Secretary.

1. they don’t ignore regulations. They are accused of maladministration this time. Which I agree with. But, to deduce that that means everybody ignores regulations is crazy.

2. Yes, and as it wasn’t illegal there are no legal reasons for taking it off him. No one is claiming that he is not able enough. So all they can do is make sure people cannot get around the regulations in future.

They don't need a legal reason to take it off him. There isn't a law covering it. But if he wanted to take the EU to court he would have to show that he was rightfully given the role to start with. And even you eventually had to agree that he shouldn't have been given the role.

But of course you will try and twist it as usual. You will try and make out that those who put him in place are not crooked. But they are. And they are the ones who decide which direction the EU takes. And you will argue that there is nothing wrong with it.