The EU: In, out, shake it all about.... (83 Viewers)

[Sick Boy]

Accession of Turkey to the European Union - Wikipedia
Turkey is negotiating its accession to the European Union (EU) as a member state, following its application accede to the European Economic Community, the predecessor of the EU, on 14 April 1987.
Turkey signed a Customs Union agreement with the EU in 1995 and was officially recognised as a candidate for full membership on 12 December 1999, at the Helsinki summit of the European Council.
Negotiations for full membership were started on 3 October 2005. Progress was slow, and out of the 35 Chapters necessary to complete the accession process only 16 had been opened and one had been closed by May 2016.

Lol Turkey would never join with its current president. Careful you’ll have astute onto you soon about being untruthful...or perhaps not

 

---

[martcov]

With respect your links are pro Eu journals which have no more credence than the parties you mention

Yes plenty of proposals get turned get turned down by JLR - they then don’t get introduced anyway as the Lisbon treaty did when a country rejected it

How many voting arrangements are there in the Eu parliament to decide on if legislation is passed - one,two or three and what are they?

Various. Some need unanimous consent, others a weighted majority. The EU council of heads of government is the most powerful institution. Anyway, back to your argument. A veto is a veto no matter which paper says it. If you think otherwise please link.

 

[Grendel]

Various. Some need unanimous consent, others a weighted majority. The EU council of heads of government is the most powerful institution. Anyway, back to your argument. A veto is a veto no matter which paper says it. If you think otherwise please link.

You do realise even the Eu sponsored “charity” full fact acknowledged grudgingly the Lisbon treaty meant the veto was nullified in certain areas by the shifting of the legislative requirements - there are three options aren’t there?

 

[martcov]

You do realise even the Eu sponsored “charity” full fact acknowledged grudgingly the Lisbon treaty meant the veto was nullified in certain areas by the shifting of the legislative requirements - there are three options aren’t there?

The idea was to reduce vetos so that it would be easier to make decisions. Reducing vetos is necessary with more countries involved. The core vetos though, are less likely to be reduced, but who knows how people will feel in a generation‘s time? We could always leave if we felt that our veto was being removed without consent. Somewhat stupidly, we are leaving when there is no threat of any of our vetos being removed without consent.

 

[Grendel]

The idea was to reduce vetos so that it would be easier to make decisions. Reducing vetos is necessary with more countries involved. The core vetos though, are less likely to be reduced, but who knows how people will feel in a generation‘s time? We could always leave if we felt that our veto was being removed without consent. Somewhat stupidly, we are leaving when there is no threat of any of our vetos being removed without consent.

“Less likely”’- by your obsessive bias an enormous acknowledgement

 

[dutchman]

Somewhat stupidly, we are leaving when there is no threat of any of our vetos being removed without consent.

Britain is NOT leaving though, there was never any intention to leave.

 

[martcov]

“Less likely”’- by your obsessive bias an enormous acknowledgement

I said maybe at some future indeterminate time. Who knows what people think in, say, 50 Years? At the moment there is no chance of us giving up our vetos if we remain. Future generations may. If we leave future generations may just as likely rejoin without vetos. Who knows? You don’t and I don’t. In the present and foreseeable future we won’t be having our vetos taken off us and we won’t be giving them up.

To follow your thinking, it is pointless leaving as we may rejoin anyway. May as well remain.

 

[Astute]

What are you on about? I said Selmayr should have resigned in the interest of transparency. He didn’t = a Union of 500m people is therefore not transparent? WTF.

He didn't=no transparency with those who run the EU. They make and break the rules as they wish. Yet you are making out that they don't or can't make or break the rules as they wish. And that is why I continue to bring up Selmayr to you. You continually make comments about the EU like now where you make out that they don't change rules when they want. They even broke EU law. And they made that same EU law so knew all about it.

 

[Astute]

So it’s yes

People will respect you if you admit things

So the veto can be rendered worthless - we are in agreement

Mart admit that he is wrong when talking about and defending the EU? :shifty:

 

[Astute]

Lol Turkey would never join with its current president. Careful you’ll have astute onto you soon about being untruthful...or perhaps not

Yes perhaps not.

Turkey wants full membership in the EU. They need the money. And they will get full membership. The question is how many years will it take. And as you know I have always said this.

 

[martcov]

He didn't=no transparency with those who run the EU. They make and break the rules as they wish. Yet you are making out that they don't or can't make or break the rules as they wish. And that is why I continue to bring up Selmayr to you. You continually make comments about the EU like now where you make out that they don't change rules when they want. They even broke EU law. And they made that same EU law so knew all about it.

Well we’ve been through this a million times. They used a method of appointment which was designed for a case of urgency. The tribunal of 3 decided Brexit was the crisis and that Selmayr was the best man to guide the EU civil service through it. Plausible on the Face of it, but the ombudsman decided they had concocted the situation purely to get their choice through and they should have used the normal procedure.

That’s all.

 

[Astute]

The idea was to reduce vetos so that it would be easier to make decisions. Reducing vetos is necessary with more countries involved. The core vetos though, are less likely to be reduced, but who knows how people will feel in a generation‘s time? We could always leave if we felt that our veto was being removed without consent. Somewhat stupidly, we are leaving when there is no threat of any of our vetos being removed without consent.

Less likely? I thought you said never......

 

[Astute]

Well we’ve been through this a million times. They used a method of appointment which was designed for a case of urgency. The tribunal of 3 decided Brexit was the crisis and that Selmayr was the best man to guide the EU civil service through it. Plausible on the Face of it, but the ombudsman decided they had concocted the situation purely to get their choice through and they should have used the normal procedure.

That’s all.

The excuse was what you come out with. There was no urgency. It was all set up by those running the EU. Just like the person Selmayr should have been up again withdrew 10 minutes later meaning there wasn't even a vote on the matter. Or how about an email sent to those who might have been interested? Or how about choosing someone who already held a position high enough up to have taken the position he shouldn't have got as he didn't hold a position high enough.

Of course Mart. It was urgent. The EU would have collapsed without him.

So why was it so urgent that they had to break EU law, rules and regulations to appoint him?

 

[Malaka]

Here is what a Brexiteer had to say about Turkey joining the EU. Opportunism at its best

 

[martcov]

Yes perhaps not.

Turkey wants full membership in the EU. They need the money. And they will get full membership. The question is how many years will it take. And as you know I have always said this.

They say the opposite to you though.

 

[martcov]

The excuse was what you come out with. There was no urgency. It was all set up by those running the EU. Just like the person Selmayr should have been up again withdrew 10 minutes later meaning there wasn't even a vote on the matter. Or how about an email sent to those who might have been interested? Or how about choosing someone who already held a position high enough up to have taken the position he shouldn't have got as he didn't hold a position high enough.

Of course Mart. It was urgent. The EU would have collapsed without him.

So why was it so urgent that they had to break EU law, rules and regulations to appoint him?

They said that not me. They were found guilty of maladministration for the reasons you state. A Union of 28 cannot be judged on a civil service selection process that was found to have been not properly conducted. Yes, it was for the top employee and it caused embarrassment. I said he should have resigned and the procedure reopened. He may well have still got the job. Even the ombudsman ( woman) said that the complaint wasn’t about his suitability for the job. The ombudsman has made the recommendation to strengthen the rules of selection to ensure it doesn’t happen again.

Now, when are you going to answer my questions about the UK selection of the head of the UK civil service? The question of whether he was vetted has been brought up because of the leak affair. He was May‘s personal choice. There was no procedure whatsoever. Proper or not proper. No inquiry. No ombudsman. Hardly a good comparison on how to select the most important civil servant.

 

[Astute]

They said that not me. They were found guilty of maladministration for the reasons you state. A Union of 28 cannot be judged on a civil service selection process that was found to have been not properly conducted. Yes, it was for the top employee and it caused embarrassment. I said he should have resigned and the procedure reopened. He may well have still got the job. Even the ombudsman ( woman) said that the complaint wasn’t about his suitability for the job. The ombudsman has made the recommendation to strengthen the rules of selection to ensure it doesn’t happen again.

Now, when are you going to answer my questions about the UK selection of the head of the UK civil service? The question of whether he was vetted has been brought up because of the leak affair. He was May‘s personal choice. There was no procedure whatsoever. Proper or not proper. No inquiry. No ombudsman. Hardly a good comparison on how to select the most important civil servant.

Yes they said that not you. But you said it as though they did nothing wrong. And you say it constantly. Then you make your excuses for saying it.

So what do you say was the urgency on appointing Selmayr?

And why do they do what they want when they want then you make out that they can't or won't change rules when they want?

 

[Astute]

They say the opposite to you though.

Who is 'they'?

If Turkey didn't want to join the EU why do they even bother trying? If the EU didn't want Turkey to join the EU why do they tell Turkey what they need to do and keep having talks with them?

I don't take much notice on what they say in public as a lot of it is lies. I prefer to look at it myself and work out what is going on.

 

[martcov]

Yes they said that not you. But you said it as though they did nothing wrong. And you say it constantly. Then you make your excuses for saying it.

So what do you say was the urgency on appointing Selmayr?

And why do they do what they want when they want then you make out that they can't or won't change rules when they want?

Are you comparing the staff appointment regulations of the EU civil service with the 4 freedoms at the core of the EU?

Any comments on May‘s appointment?

 

[skybluetony176]

Who is 'they'?

If Turkey didn't want to join the EU why do they even bother trying? If the EU didn't want Turkey to join the EU why do they tell Turkey what they need to do and keep having talks with them?

I don't take much notice on what they say in public as a lot of it is lies. I prefer to look at it myself and work out what is going on.

They aren’t trying anymore. That’s the point. Even the EU conceded last year that Turkey is now further away from joining than they were when negotiations to join started in 2005. Under Erdogan and the sweeping changes he’s brought in it means that they actually meet less of the criteria to join now than they did in 2005. That’s not a country that is trying to join the EU by any stretch of the imagination. I’m not sure there’s even been meaningful talks in at least three years.

 

[martcov]

They aren’t trying anymore. That’s the point. Even the EU conceded last year that Turkey is now further away from joining than they were when negotiations to join started in 2005. Under Erdogan and the sweeping changes he’s brought in it means that they actually meet less of the criteria to join now than they did in 2005. That’s not a country that is trying to join the EU by any stretch of the imagination. I’m not sure there’s even been meaningful talks in at least three years.

Merkel has said there is no place in the EU for Turkey. Further away than the moon at the moment.

 

[skybluetony176]

Merkel has said there is no place in the EU for Turkey. Further away than the moon at the moment.

Boris will be disappointed. By the time we rejoin Turkey still won’t have joined.

 

[Sick Boy]

Yes perhaps not.

Turkey wants full membership in the EU. They need the money. And they will get full membership. The question is how many years will it take. And as you know I have always said this.

Turkey is further away than ever joining the EU from the perspective of both sides, especially now with Erdoğan in power.

It first applied to join over 32 years ago and has closed one chapter.

 

[Ashdown]

What an embarrassing response from the Remain crowd......voting for the pointless Lib Dems as a protest. Pathetic short termist drivel. Just get over it, you lost !!

 

[Alan Dugdales Moustache]

I was answering someone who is obsessed and talking about liars who are obsessed with a failed project. So go to them if you want to talk about obsession. I shouldn’t mention Selmayr though.

There's a certain irony to this statement.

 

[martcov]

There's a certain irony to this statement.

No there isn’t. How is the Brexit project coming on? How many seats did the LibDems win? How many leave lies have been exposed and the biggest lie was again exposed in the local elections. The will of the people. No way, or the liberals would have been boycotted instead having their best night in recent history. Exactly as I described it.

 

[martcov]

What an embarrassing response from the Remain crowd......voting for the pointless Lib Dems as a protest. Pathetic short termist drivel. Just get over it, you lost !!

Yes fancy people not voting for leave parties and voting for remain parties. How pointless is that? Let's see how remainers vote in a people's vote on the 'final deal v no deal v remain'. Probably for remain. I wouldn't put it past them.

 

[shmmeee]

What an embarrassing response from the Remain crowd......voting for the pointless Lib Dems as a protest. Pathetic short termist drivel. Just get over it, you lost !!

Unlike the dignified response from Leavers:



And I’d say the message they sent is pretty clear, pro-Brexit parties lost and pro-Remain won:



Get over it.

 

[Grendel]

Democracy will speak

No there isn’t. How is the Brexit project coming on? How many seats did the LibDems win? How many leave lies have been exposed and the biggest lie was again exposed in the local elections. The will of the people. No way, or the liberals would have been boycotted instead having their best night in recent history. Exactly as I described it.

How do you think they’ll do in the European elections? If Farage storms it will you admit remain lies have been exposed, Britain wants Brexit and will you shake Nigel’s hand?

 

[Grendel]

Unlike the dignified response from Leavers:

View attachment 12087

And I’d say the message they sent is pretty clear, pro-Brexit parties lost and pro-Remain won:

View attachment 12088

Get over it.

So 25% of council seats are with pro remain parties - right there with your 20% food inflation shite

You are a bit thick aren’t you?

 

[skybluetony176]

Unlike the dignified response from Leavers:

View attachment 12087

And I’d say the message they sent is pretty clear, pro-Brexit parties lost and pro-Remain won:

View attachment 12088

Get over it.

That’s not even the final picture.

Scoreboard

1. 
   Conservative
   Total
   +/-
   Councils:
   91
   -41
   Councillors:
   3462
   -1263
   Labour
   Total
   +/-
   Councils:
   60
   -6
   Councillors:
   1972
   -87
   Liberal Democrat
   Total
   +/-
   Councils:
   18
   +10
   Councillors:
   1296
   +664
   Residents' Association
   Total
   +/-
   Councils:
   2
   +1
   Councillors:
   103
   +35
   Green
   Total
   +/-
   Councils:
   0
   —No results
   Councillors:
   255
   +185
   UK Independence Party
   Total
   +/-
   Councils:
   0
   —No results
   Councillors:
   31
   -144
   Independent Community & Health Concern
   Total
   +/-
   Councils:
   0
   —No results
   Councillors:
   8
   +6
   Liberal Party
   Total
   +/-
   Councils:
   0
   —No results
   Councillors:
   7
   +1
   Others
   Total
   +/-
   Councils:
   0
   —No results
   Councillors:
   0
   —No results
   Independent
   Total
   +/-
   Councils:
   1
   +1
   Councillors:
   1015
   +599
   No Overall Control
   Total
   +/-
   Councils:
   68
   +35
   Councillors:
   —No results
   —

 

[skybluetony176]

So 25% of council seats are with pro remain parties ?

How do you work that out?

 

[Grendel]

How do you work that out?

By looking at the data?

 

[skybluetony176]

By looking at the data?

Not sure what data you’ve been looking at but there was only one true brexit Party that fielded candidates and that was UKIP and their vote was decimated. There’s only two true remain parties and that’s Lib Dem’s and Greens both of who made substantial gains.

 

[Grendel]

Not sure what data you’ve been looking at but there was only one true brexit Party that fielded candidates and that was UKIP and their vote was decimated. There’s only two true remain parties and that’s Lib Dem’s and Greens both of who made substantial gains.

What percentage of seats do the parties committed to remain occupy?