Brexit

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Mick

And as per usual, I see you fail to highlight nothing absolutely wrong with the Lib Dem’s mantra and profanity laden attire.

You used to like that word until the LibDems started using it.

I'm not sure that if you criticise a controversy-filled speech in the EU Parliament (that leavers like Sephiroth have also criticised), you can only do so if you find fault with another party in the European Parliament.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

You used to like that word until the LibDems started using it.

I'm not sure that if you criticise a controversy-filled speech in the EU Parliament (that leavers like Sephiroth have also criticised), you can only do so if you find fault with another party in the European Parliament.

The difference is, I’m not professing to be a professional, adult political party. So your point is moot.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

You used to like that word until the LibDems started using it.

I'm not sure that if you criticise a controversy-filled speech in the EU Parliament (that leavers like Sephiroth have also criticised), you can only do so if you find fault with another party in the European Parliament.

Whatever. That word is still offensive. However you spin it.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Whatever. That word is still offensive. However you spin it.

No spin from me.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

No spin from me.

Maybe not. Just approval, it seems.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Mick

The difference is, I’m not professing to be a professional, adult political party. So your point is moot.

Surely it's ok for posters like Sephiroth and others to criticise a speech from Ann Widdecombe without having to dig up something from another party and criticise it in the same post?

---------- Post added at 00:34 ---------- Previous post was at 00:13 ----------

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Maybe not. Just approval, it seems.

Where is the approval? If someone like me or Sephiroth calls Ann Widdecombe out for a speech, there is no obligation for us to go back X number of days, minutes and hours and find something from someone else to criticise. Do you really want everyone to live in some kind of Orwellian 1984?

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Surely it's ok for posters like Sephiroth and others to criticise a speech from Ann Widdecombe without having to dig up something from another party and criticise it in the same post?

---------- Post added at 00:34 ---------- Previous post was at 00:13 ----------


Where is the approval? If someone like me or Sephiroth calls Ann Widdecombe out for a speech, there is no obligation for us to go back X number of days, minutes and hours and find something from someone else to criticise. Do you really want everyone to live in some kind of Orwellian 1984?

So you are out to dredge up any nasty stuff on anyone who disagrees with you. H'mm, just as I thought.

Do you have the ability to make any constructive comments?

Anne Widdescombe could not be any further from 1984. What are you talking about exactly? Are you perhaps a little confused?

Sorry, but I can't quite understand where you are coming from.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

So you are out to dredge up any nasty stuff on anyone who disagrees with you. H'mm, just as I thought.

Do you have the ability to make any constructive comments?

Anne Widdescombe could not be any further from 1984. What are you talking about exactly? Are you perhaps a little confused?

Sorry, but I can't quite understand where you are coming from.

My apologies for any lack of clarity.
All I'm saying is that you can criticise Politician A without having to criticise Politician B.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

My apologies for any lack of clarity.
All I'm saying is that you can criticise Politician A without having to criticise Politician B.

Well that very much depends Andrew as if politician A and Politician B are both very much of the same cloth then you can criticise both of them.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

My apologies for any lack of clarity.
All I'm saying is that you can criticise Politician A without having to criticise Politician B.

Then you will have no issues with being accused of hypocrisy. Anyway...
Enough. Time to move on. Sick of this repetitive banal discourse about what Ann Widdecombe suppose to have said.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Dave42

it not try living in a real dictatorship like North Korea then say that yes lots wrong with EU but it aint a dictatorship people have lots of freedoms you never ever get in a dictatorship

People have the vote in North Korea, but only one result is allowed. Sound familiar? Doesn't matter if 99% of this country wanted something, we wouldn't get it. That is undemocratic.

Originally Posted by nomadking

People have the vote in North Korea, but only one result is allowed. Sound familiar? Doesn't matter if 99% of this country wanted something, we wouldn't get it. That is undemocratic.

Because NK is renowned for it’s Freedom of Movement between it and other countries, has a hereditary Supreme Leader who murders opponents, and has millions of it’s people starving - sounds just like the EU...

Originally Posted by Hugh

Because NK is renowned for it’s Freedom of Movement between it and other countries, has a hereditary Supreme Leader who murders opponents, and has millions of it’s people starving - sounds just like the EU...

Irrelevant- that narrow mindedness is back I see. Your defence of the EU is getting boring Hugh.

Regardless-They have an undemocratic system when only one candidate is put forward for confirmation by MEP’s. The EU is undemocratic and you cannot refute this fact, so perhaps, stop trying.

---------- Post added at 09:05 ---------- Previous post was at 08:59 ----------

Originally Posted by nomadking

People have the vote in North Korea, but only one result is allowed. Sound familiar? Doesn't matter if 99% of this country wanted something, we wouldn't get it. That is undemocratic.

Spot on. MEP’s got to vote on a nomination by someone not even on a ballot paper. A failing German minister. The EU Council ignored the lead candidate system, designed to stem the very concept of accusations of the EU being undemocratic.

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Mick

Irrelevant- that narrow mindedness is back I see. Your defence of the EU is getting boring Hugh.

Regardless-They have an undemocratic system when only one candidate is put forward for confirmation by MEP’s. The EU is undemocratic and you cannot refute this fact, so perhaps, stop trying.

---------- Post added at 09:05 ---------- Previous post was at 08:59 ----------



Spot on. MEP’s got to vote on a nomination by someone not even on a ballot paper. A failing German minister. The EU Council ignored the lead candidate system, designed to stem the very concept of accusations of the EU being undemocratic.

It's all about standards and when the bar is set lower than a snakes belly people are fooled into thinking it's a democratic vote. [with only one candidate]

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by Mick

Irrelevant- that narrow mindedness is back I see. Your defence of the EU is getting boring Hugh.

Regardless-They have an undemocratic system when only one candidate is put forward for confirmation by MEP’s. The EU is undemocratic and you cannot refute this fact, so perhaps, stop trying.

---------- Post added at 09:05 ---------- Previous post was at 08:59 ----------



Spot on. MEP’s got to vote on a nomination by someone not even on a ballot paper. A failing German minister. The EU Council ignored the lead candidate system, designed to stem the very concept of accusations of the EU being undemocratic.

We can't brag on democracy either. The next PM is being chosen by 0.2% of the population, some of whom have received more than one vote ! Way to go democracy UK !

As for the EU, the recent EU elections bases on a PR system is far more democratic than our first past the post, where depending on which constitutency you're in your vote is pointless.

Try moving the goal posts again as the EU win on democracy