The EU: In, out, shake it all about.... (185 Viewers)

[martcov]

If you were not lying why did you try twice after admitting that the second enquiry came to the same conclusion as the first to make out that what the EU said was correct and that it was lawful and right?

You correct me? It is me correcting you constantly. Your twisted views stop us from debating this debacle properly.

I didn’t. I have never said that the final decision was the same as the first. I quoted the first. I only got the second result on Tuesday or maybe Wednesday and then I said they used the word ‚broken‘ this time instead of ‚stretched‘. The first ombudsman’s report said the law wasn’t broken and that is why Selmayr is still there. The final decision is stronger and recommended his resignation. I presume he will fight against this decision on the basis that the wording in the first report was different. But, I don’t know that and I am not a liar for suggesting that he sees it differently to yourself.

The rules are that they could argue a case of urgency to by pass the usual procedure. They did, and that made it lawful, but stretched the law to the limit, according to the first inquiry. The final decision came to the conclusion that the case of urgency was contrived and therefore the law was broken.

I am not a liar or denying anything. That is just how it panned out.

Trying to listen to both sides and quoting the defence argument is not having „twisted views“. Claiming to be neutral, but not bothering to read the report, check the rules or listen to the other side of the story, is having a twisted view. Not exactly a neutral truth searching person as you claim to be.

 

---

[Astute]

I didn’t. I have never said that the final decision was the same as the first. I quoted the first. I only got the second result on Tuesday or maybe Wednesday and then I said they used the word ‚broken‘ this time instead of ‚stretched‘. The first ombudsman’s report said the law wasn’t broken and that is why Selmayr is still there. The final decision is stronger and recommended his resignation. I presume he will fight against this decision on the basis that the wording in the first report was different. But, I don’t know that and I am not a liar for suggesting that he sees it differently to yourself.

The rules are that they could argue a case of urgency to by pass the usual procedure. They did, and that made it lawful, but stretched the law to the limit, according to the first inquiry. The final decision came to the conclusion that the case of urgency was contrived and therefore the law was broken.

I am not a liar or denying anything. That is just how it panned out.

Trying to listen to both sides and quoting the defence argument is not having „twisted views“. Claiming to be neutral, but not bothering to read the report, check the rules or listen to the other side of the story, is having a twisted view. Not exactly a neutral truth searching person as you claim to be.

Why didn't you make a comment each time I called you a liar for bringing up what the EU commission said about the first enquiry and making out it was the final say on the matter a couple of days after saying you admitted his promotion to the job was wrong? And I called you out twice. It is there for all to see.

At least I remember why I had your comments blocked. You lie through your teeth for no reason other than to try and change history but to those who know the truth. You wait a couple of days then come out with the lies again after admitting they are lies or you ignore when caught out then rinse and repeat.

 

[Captain Dart]

What’s happened then????

F all apparently. Some commentators (and me) were pwned.

 

[Astute]

F all apparently. Some commentators (and me) were pwned.

May will see this shitstorm out. Then she will go. Then the Tories will get another PM who isn't tainted by what ahs happened and will blacken the name of Corbyn if he is still the Labour leader.

Politics and politicians are so predictable these days.

 

[martcov]

Why didn't you make a comment each time I called you a liar for bringing up what the EU commission said about the first enquiry and making out it was the final say on the matter a couple of days after saying you admitted his promotion to the job was wrong? And I called you out twice. It is there for all to see.

At least I remember why I had your comments blocked. You lie through your teeth for no reason other than to try and change history but to those who know the truth. You wait a couple of days then come out with the lies again after admitting they are lies or you ignore when caught out then rinse and repeat.

I didn’t make out it was the final say. It was the latest report at the time and was only changed by the final report last week. Which I couldn’t have known about in advance. Which I only knew about a couple of days after it was published. I linked the report from Öttinger, which was the „defence“ argument whilst discussion was still ongoing. Which shows that it wasn’t final at the time. I also said the appointment was dodgy and I wasn’t happy about the appointment several times in our original discussion. Nothing to do with changing history. Just trying to find the truth. Which you aren’t.

 

[Sick Boy]

Why didn't you make a comment each time I called you a liar for bringing up what the EU commission said about the first enquiry and making out it was the final say on the matter a couple of days after saying you admitted his promotion to the job was wrong? And I called you out twice. It is there for all to see.

At least I remember why I had your comments blocked. You lie through your teeth for no reason other than to try and change history but to those who know the truth. You wait a couple of days then come out with the lies again after admitting they are lies or you ignore when caught out then rinse and repeat.

It’s bizarre that half the people on this thread claim to have blocked each other yet still manage to get into rows.

 

[martcov]

May will see this shitstorm out. Then she will go. Then the Tories will get another PM who isn't tainted by what ahs happened and will blacken the name of Corbyn if he is still the Labour leader.

Politics and politicians are so predictable these days.

Some posters too.

 

[skybluetony176]

It’s bizarre that half the people on this thread claim to have blocked each other yet still manage to get into rows.

Have you noticed that it’s all leavers and a “neutral” that do the blocking.

 

[martcov]

He isn't wrong though. Same old lines all the time although we know they are not true. Prove him wrong and he drops the subject for a couple of days then makes the same allegations yet again.

Bollocks. I go quiet not because you have come out with some brilliant relevation, but because I have to work. You don’t prove me wrong. The final decision in Selmayr superseded what I quoted. Best case scenario for you, is that you read the final report ( or rather a press clip ) a day before me and didn’t link it to catch me out. It is often the other way round, as with you claiming Germany was in a recession to fit your POV.

 

[martcov]

May will see this shitstorm out. Then she will go. Then the Tories will get another PM who isn't tainted by what ahs happened and will blacken the name of Corbyn if he is still the Labour leader.

Politics and politicians are so predictable these days.

Not just predictable by you, but confirmed by May that she will not lead the Tories after Brexit. The Tories will choose another leader. Also not hard to predict. The Conservative party is more than tainted by Brexit and whoever comes as next will not be directly responsible for May‘s deal by definition, but still part of a tainted party. Labour will say they were behind Brexit if it goes well, but hammer the Tories if it turns out bad. That is also an easy prediction.

 

[martcov]

Have you noticed that it’s all leavers and a “neutral” that do the blocking.

Leavers appear to be more angry than remainers. IMO.

Awaiting a call from NDR for an interview on Brexit. I don’t know if I have time though as I am off to Munich today. Or as Astute thinks, going into hiding.

 

[Astute]

It’s bizarre that half the people on this thread claim to have blocked each other yet still manage to get into rows.

Ah. So Mart is truthful?

Do you think we should get rid of the 'show ignored comments' tab then?

And why don't you ever say anything to Mart when he starts coming out with his crap yet you expect others to point out every bit of crap from those who don't agree with you? Because if you and others did he wouldn't come out with the same old crap every day. Then we would have a better chance of a debate.

 

[Astute]

Bollocks. I go quiet not because you have come out with some brilliant relevation, but because I have to work. You don’t prove me wrong. The final decision in Selmayr superseded what I quoted. Best case scenario for you, is that you read the final report ( or rather a press clip ) a day before me and didn’t link it to catch me out. It is often the other way round, as with you claiming Germany was in a recession to fit your POV.

Absolute bollocks as normal.

You keep quoting what the EU commission said about the Selmayr debacle and not what the enquiries found. You keep saying that it was legal as the commission says and not what the enquiries found when said not legal. And you say it each time we have the debate. Then you try to change history.

Are you saying it isn't true? If you are I will link the comments on here.

 

[Sick Boy]

Ah. So Mart is truthful?

Do you think we should get rid of the 'show ignored comments' tab then?

And why don't you ever say anything to Mart when he starts coming out with his crap yet you expect others to point out every bit of crap from those who don't agree with you? Because if you and others did he wouldn't come out with the same old crap every day. Then we would have a better chance of a debate.

I was commenting on people claiming they’ve blocked posters. I blocked that weird pisshead and have never felt the need to show ignored content and read is drivel.

 

[martcov]

Ah. So Mart is truthful?

Do you think we should get rid of the 'show ignored comments' tab then?

And why don't you ever say anything to Mart when he starts coming out with his crap yet you expect others to point out every bit of crap from those who don't agree with you? Because if you and others did he wouldn't come out with the same old crap every day. Then we would have a better chance of a debate.

What crap?

 

[martcov]

Absolute bollocks as normal.

You keep quoting what the EU commission said about the Selmayr debacle and not what the enquiries found. You keep saying that it was legal as the commission says and not what the enquiries found when said not legal. And you say it each time we have the debate. Then you try to change history.

Are you saying it isn't true? If you are I will link the comments on here.

I posted an extract from the report where the ombudsman said it was „stretched“. I cannot do anymore than quote the actual first report at the time. If you want to say the report was a lie fine. The press release used other words to the report. Which is why you are on your high horse and which is why the commission objected to the original report being falsely reported. The final report said the law was broken. But, I had no influence on either reports, so you cannot claim I am liar or trying to change the story.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

I was commenting on people claiming they’ve blocked posters. I blocked that weird pisshead and have never felt the need to show ignored content and read is drivel.

Begs the question... which weird pisshead?

 

[olderskyblue]

Begs the question... which weird pisshead?

That'll be half the people on here...but..which half??

 

[Astute]

I was commenting on people claiming they’ve blocked posters. I blocked that weird pisshead and have never felt the need to show ignored content and read is drivel.

So you have blocked Mart yet he likes your post :wideyed:

Don't worry he is back on blocked list. You won't see his lies or me pointing them out anymore.

 

[martcov]

So you have blocked Mart yet he likes your post :wideyed:

Don't worry he is back on blocked list. You won't see his lies or me pointing them out anymore.

Seeing there are no lies from me and you get mixed up, SB won’t see any lies from me. He will see Astute making false claims though. Astute, you, say my quote „stretched“, and not broken, was from the commission. It was paragraph 130 from the ombudsman’s first report. More Astute crap.

 

[Sick Boy]

Begs the question... which weird pisshead?

It looks like it has stopped working!

The one who was coming on here late at night pissed up, think he has a fast show character as his picture

 

[Astute]

Seeing there are no lies from me and you get mixed up, SB won’t see any lies from me. He will see Astute making false claims though. Astute, you, say my quote „stretched“, and not broken, was from the commission. It was paragraph 130 from the ombudsman’s first report. More Astute crap.

Good job I forgot to reblock you. For the last time I will remind you what was said. Yet you continually say the opposite and thi k of a bullshit reason each time to be able to say the opposite.

The investigation into the German’s promotion from Jean-Claude Juncker’s chief of staff to Commission secretary-general “did not follow EU law, in letter or spirit, and did not follow the Commission’s own rules,” the office of the ombudsman, Emily O’Reilly, said in a statement.

 

[martcov]

Good job I forgot to reblock you. For the last time I will remind you what was said. Yet you continually say the opposite and thi k of a bullshit reason each time to be able to say the opposite.

The investigation into the German’s promotion from Jean-Claude Juncker’s chief of staff to Commission secretary-general “did not follow EU law, in letter or spirit, and did not follow the Commission’s own rules,” the office of the ombudsman, Emily O’Reilly, said in a statement.

Followed by: stretched to the limit... you missed that. At least quote the whole sentence..

 

[martcov]

Good job I forgot to reblock you. For the last time I will remind you what was said. Yet you continually say the opposite and thi k of a bullshit reason each time to be able to say the opposite.

The investigation into the German’s promotion from Jean-Claude Juncker’s chief of staff to Commission secretary-general “did not follow EU law, in letter or spirit, and did not follow the Commission’s own rules,” the office of the ombudsman, Emily O’Reilly, said in a statement.

Possibly even.. “coup-like action which stretched and possibly even overstretched the limits of the law”. The Ombudsman agrees with Parliament that “the tradition of non-publication has reached its limits insofar as it does notcorrespond to modern standards of transparency, the Commission, the European Parliament and other EU institutions should abide“

Is not the same as broke the law :“coup-like action which stretched and possibly even overstretched the limits of the law“

Yes it was damning. But the first report doesn’t go as far as saying they broke the law.

 

[King of the Lesbians]

Have you noticed that it’s all leavers and a “neutral” that do the blocking.

I blocked that weird pisshead and have never felt the need to show ignored content and read is drivel.

:emoji_thinking:

 

[martcov]

Ä

:emoji_thinking:

The exception proves the rule.

 

[martcov]

Daily Mail continues to slip away from the extreme Brexiters, whilst the Daily Farage sticks to Faragist ERG views:

From the Daily Farage:

‘We’re STICKING up for the public’ – Audience APPLAUDS following Rees-Mogg’s claim on QT

BREXITEER Jacob Rees-Mogg was forced to defend the European Research Group (ERG) over their stance on Brexit on Question Time last night.


From the Daily Mail:


'Make her PM!': Chemical firm boss is cheered by Question Time audience as she makes impassioned warning about 'catastrophic' no-deal Brexit and accuses Rees-Mogg of misleading the public

 

[martcov]

Good job I forgot to reblock you. For the last time I will remind you what was said. Yet you continually say the opposite and thi k of a bullshit reason each time to be able to say the opposite.

The investigation into the German’s promotion from Jean-Claude Juncker’s chief of staff to Commission secretary-general “did not follow EU law, in letter or spirit, and did not follow the Commission’s own rules,” the office of the ombudsman, Emily O’Reilly, said in a statement.

Whilst you don’t comment on the 3000,00 per hour advisor to JCB who had this to say on referendums:

David Davis: There is a proper role for referendums in constitutional change, but only if done properly. If it is

26 Nov 2002 : Column 202

not done properly, it can be a dangerous tool. The Chairman of the Public Administration Committee, who is no longer in the Chamber, said that Clement Attlee—who is, I think, one of the Deputy Prime Minister's heroes—famously described the referendum as the device of demagogues and dictators. We may not always go as far as he did, but what is certain is that pre-legislative referendums of the type the Deputy Prime Minister is proposing are the worst type of all.
Referendums should be held when the electorate are in the best possible position to make a judgment. They should be held when people can view all the arguments for and against and when those arguments have been rigorously tested. In short, referendums should be held when people know exactly what they are getting. So legislation should be debated by Members of Parliament on the Floor of the House, and then put to the electorate for the voters to judge.

We should not ask people to vote on a blank sheet of paper and tell them to trust us to fill in the details afterwards. For referendums to be fair and compatible with our parliamentary process, we need the electors to be as well informed as possible and to know exactly what they are voting for. Referendums need to be treated as an addition to the parliamentary process, not as a substitute for it.

Funny that. Seems 2002 was another world for Davis.

 

[Astute]

Possibly even.. “coup-like action which stretched and possibly even overstretched the limits of the law”. The Ombudsman agrees with Parliament that “the tradition of non-publication has reached its limits insofar as it does notcorrespond to modern standards of transparency, the Commission, the European Parliament and other EU institutions should abide“

Is not the same as broke the law :“coup-like action which stretched and possibly even overstretched the limits of the law“

Yes it was damning. But the first report doesn’t go as far as saying they broke the law.

The second one said it was against the law though. And after you read this you waited for a day to try and say that the comments from the EU were the final say and not the second one which you knew about. And she said the second one came to the same conclusion as the first. Wrong by EU law. Wrong by rules. Wrong by regulations.


Then you tried again two days later to make out the EU commission trying to say their side was the final view yet again. You had yet again ignored the truth.

If you disagree with this we can strike a deal. If you knew the truth for sure yet tried to make out that you didn't know the truth you keep out of this thread from now. If I can't prove it I keep out of this thread from now.

Just let me know. I have all the evidence I need ready to put up on here.

 

[Astute]

Whilst you don’t comment on the 3000,00 per hour advisor to JCB who had this to say on referendums:

David Davis: There is a proper role for referendums in constitutional change, but only if done properly. If it is

26 Nov 2002 : Column 202

not done properly, it can be a dangerous tool. The Chairman of the Public Administration Committee, who is no longer in the Chamber, said that Clement Attlee—who is, I think, one of the Deputy Prime Minister's heroes—famously described the referendum as the device of demagogues and dictators. We may not always go as far as he did, but what is certain is that pre-legislative referendums of the type the Deputy Prime Minister is proposing are the worst type of all.
Referendums should be held when the electorate are in the best possible position to make a judgment. They should be held when people can view all the arguments for and against and when those arguments have been rigorously tested. In short, referendums should be held when people know exactly what they are getting. So legislation should be debated by Members of Parliament on the Floor of the House, and then put to the electorate for the voters to judge.

We should not ask people to vote on a blank sheet of paper and tell them to trust us to fill in the details afterwards. For referendums to be fair and compatible with our parliamentary process, we need the electors to be as well informed as possible and to know exactly what they are voting for. Referendums need to be treated as an addition to the parliamentary process, not as a substitute for it.

Funny that. Seems 2002 was another world for Davis.

I don't argue against the truth.

I argue against your constant lies. And those who agree with you on other things never say anything against your constant lies. Says a lot about them.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

'Sausage World' plans put on hold

 

[Sick Boy]

:emoji_thinking:

I am neutral in the debate.

 

[Grappa]

'Sausage World' plans put on hold

"We are also launching into Ireland and have created a special sausage 'Feck' to celebrate the launch."

 

[martcov]

The second one said it was against the law though. And after you read this you waited for a day to try and say that the comments from the EU were the final say and not the second one which you knew about. And she said the second one came to the same conclusion as the first. Wrong by EU law. Wrong by rules. Wrong by regulations.


Then you tried again two days later to make out the EU commission trying to say their side was the final view yet again. You had yet again ignored the truth.

If you disagree with this we can strike a deal. If you knew the truth for sure yet tried to make out that you didn't know the truth you keep out of this thread from now. If I can't prove it I keep out of this thread from now.

Just let me know. I have all the evidence I need ready to put up on here.

I knew about the first report, the answer in defence to the first report and got the final decision a couple of days ago. Maybe after yourself. I didn’t say the defence was the final decision. I said there was a criticism of the first report. It was described in the article as scathing. Was overridden though. Which is what I said when I got the final decision. Where’s the lie?

 

[skybluetony176]

Daily Mail continues to slip away from the extreme Brexiters, whilst the Daily Farage sticks to Faragist ERG views:

From the Daily Farage:

‘We’re STICKING up for the public’ – Audience APPLAUDS following Rees-Mogg’s claim on QT

BREXITEER Jacob Rees-Mogg was forced to defend the European Research Group (ERG) over their stance on Brexit on Question Time last night.


From the Daily Mail:


'Make her PM!': Chemical firm boss is cheered by Question Time audience as she makes impassioned warning about 'catastrophic' no-deal Brexit and accuses Rees-Mogg of misleading the public

The chemical firm boss made her point very well.