[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;50945627]nope you're still not getting it, you're still parroting the same transparent bullshit that you've been parroting in every post
every major change the EU has been ratified by the UK, we had exceptions to the immigration laws that were negotiated before brexit fucked that all up, and the people that put forward legislation are [I][B]PEOPLE PUT FORWARD BY THE NATION-STATES THAT MAKE UP THE EU, AND THEN VOTED ON BY REPRESENTATIVES WITH A MORE DEMOCRATICALLY REPRESENTATIVE SYSTEM THAN THE UK CURRENTLY HAS[/B][/I][/QUOTE]
Wait? Are you saying the Commission that proposes laws is more democratic than the UK? Are you being serious?
I like how it's ok to be controlled by the EU because the UK isn't getting it as bad as other countries. Great argument and totally doesn't show how bad the EU is.
The UK still doesn't get to control it's own borders and the fact that a trade deal determines UK law is sickening. Sure UK can try ratifying some law but that doesn't change the fact that UK has to deal with EU law even if they don't want it.
The UK has to help pay for EUs horrible policies and spending, doesn't have complete control over it's borders like every nation should and gets laws forced on it. You going "but it's a better deal than other nations get" doesn't change a thing.
[editline]25th August 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=MaximLaHaxim;50945641]Have you considered that maybe, y'know, those laws are in place for a reason?[/QUOTE]
The reason is incompetent policy makers who in many cases don't have to deal with public opinion.
Are you really going to defend the horrible way the immigration crisis has been handled?
What about the European Union trying to create a European army effectively becoming a super state? Is that a good idea too? How about the consistently failing Euro? Maybe we can take a look at the whole Greece situation as a great example of EUs "reasoning".
Even if the European Union wasn't incompetent the fact is that a trade union should stay as a trade union. It shouldn't determine legislation for countries, especially when it's policy makers are corrupt and aren't democratically elected.
[QUOTE=Metist;50945620]
Yeah, not wanting to be have to abide by other people's law is totally meaningless. If the UK has to unwillingly abide by laws and deal with immigration it didn't want then it clear it isn't in control of it'self.
Why do you want your country to be controlled by others? Especially when the people who make the laws are unelected.[/QUOTE]
You seem to ignoring the point. Why would the EU give us as good or a better deal than we have now? That would set a bad precedent, and we have very little to offer ourselves. What we have is a financial sector that is already shitting its trousers and planning exit strategies. I know at least one major company that is planning on moving abroad to a more suitable location for worldwide trade
[QUOTE=Metist;50945664]Wait? Are you saying the Commission that proposes laws is more democratic than the UK? Are you being serious?
I like how it's ok to be controlled by the EU because the UK isn't getting it as bad as other countries. Great argument and totally doesn't show how bad the EU is.
The UK still doesn't get to control it's own borders and the fact that a trade deal determines UK law is sickening. Sure UK can try ratifying some law but that doesn't change the fact that UK has to deal with EU law even if they don't want it.
The UK has to help pay for EUs horrible policies and spending, doesn't have complete control over it's borders like every nation should and gets laws forced on it. You going "but it's a better deal than other nations get" doesn't change a thing.
[editline]25th August 2016[/editline]
[/QUOTE]
no i'm saying that the way that you vote for MEPs is more democratic than the way you vote for MPs. because it is.
"Sure UK can try ratifying some law but that doesn't change the fact that UK has to deal with EU law even if they don't want it. "
what the fuck are you talking about, when i said that the UK ratified the changes to the EU that made it what it is, I mean that the uk ratified the changes to the EU that made it what it is
did you use the word ratify because i used it, without actually understanding what i meant? do you even know what ratify means?
[QUOTE=strayebyrd;50945705]You seem to ignoring the point. Why would the EU give us as good or a better deal than we have now? [/QUOTE]
If they want both parties to lose then sure they can purposely make a bad deal with bad faith. It would only hurt everyone involved and be a pathetic scare tactic.
Even then a trade deal is going to be made and the UK shouldn't like EUs bullying and scare tactics get in the way of their own freedom and democracy.
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;50945737]no i'm saying that the way that you vote for MEPs is more democratic than the way you vote for MPs. because it is.[/QUOTE]
So you are just going to the place where policy is actually created.
yes I do know what Ratify means. You don't get it though. The UK gets to Ratify laws but guess what happens if they don't want to accept a law? Then it continues to get forced down their throat over and over until they do Ratify it and then they can't do anything to stop it.
Why are you ok with policies undemocratically proposed get pushed through to your country when many times they don't have your countries best interest at heart? Why are you ok with an incompetent, undemocratic and untrustworthy leader making bad policies for your country? At least if your own country makes bad choices it's on them and on you.
[QUOTE=Metist;50945799]If they want both parties to lose then sure they can purposely make a bad deal with bad faith. It would only hurt everyone involved and be a pathetic scare tactic.
Even then a trade deal is going to be made and the UK shouldn't like EUs bullying and scare tactics get in the way of their own freedom and democracy.
So you are just going to the place where policy is actually created.
yes I do know what Ratify means. You don't get it though. The UK gets to Ratify laws but guess what happens if they don't want to accept a law? Then it continues to get forced down their throat over and over until they do Ratify it and then they can't do anything to stop it.
Why are you ok with policies undemocratically proposed get pushed through to your country when many times they don't have your countries best interest at heart? Why are you ok with an incompetent, undemocratic and untrustworthy leader making bad policies for your country? At least if your own country makes bad choices it's on them and on you.[/QUOTE]
no, you STILL don't understand
the UK doesn't ratify laws beyond the agreement that the UK will pass any EU laws as acts of parliament
when I say changes to the EU, i meant the treaties that made the EU what it is currently, maastricht, lisbon etc
these were all ratified by the UK, if we didn't ratify them, [B]the treaty wouldn't have gone through
[/B]as i have said repeatedly, you fundamentally do not understand how the eu works
why do I support the EU? because as far as supranational entities go, the EU was created with the best of intentions, and the vast majority of EU legislation has been extremely positive (such as laws on intellectual property and the freedom of the internet), freedom of movement across Europe is amazing, and being able to work closely with other european nations for science and technology has had amazing benefits
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;50945835]no, you STILL don't understand
the UK doesn't ratify laws beyond the agreement that the UK will pass any EU laws as acts of parliament
[/QUOTE]
You keep saying I don't understand even after I explain over and over why it's bad.
So how is it that you don't see what's bad with the UK being forced to ratify laws that aren't their own and aren't created democratically?
This is a fundamental and unexcusable problem. How is this not an issue for you? The law you must abide might not be tied to your democratic voice. It might not even have your best intention in mind like for example the migrant crisis.
The average Britain was fed up with laws from the EU not being agreeable to them and so they told them to leave. The fact that the UK democratically decided it is better off without the EU proves that the EU didn't democratically represent the UK.
There is absolutely no reason other than the EU wanting to bully nations into not leaving for why the UK and the rest of Europe can't continue to work together. The only difference is that now the UK might have the democratic freedom to decide their own laws and not be apart of a failing system while being able to negotiate trade with the world freely. Even when the EU creates it's own army will you finally be thankful that you left that undemocratic and corrupt institution?
[QUOTE=Metist;50945898]You keep saying I don't understand even after I explain over and over why it's bad.
So how is it that you don't see what's bad with the UK being forced to ratify laws that aren't their own and aren't created democratically?
This is a fundamental and unexcusable problem. How is this not an issue for you? The law you must abide might not be tied to your democratic voice. It might not even have your best intention in mind like for example the migrant crisis.
The average Britain was fed up with laws from the EU not being agreeable to them and so they told them to leave. The fact that the UK democratically decided it is better off without the EU proves that the EU didn't democratically represent the UK.
There is absolutely no reason other than the EU wanting to bully nations into not leaving for why the UK and the rest of Europe can't continue to work together. The only difference is that now the UK might have the democratic freedom to decide their own laws and not be apart of a failing system while being able to negotiate trade with the world freely. Even when the EU creates it's own army will you finally be thankful that you left that undemocratic and corrupt institution?[/QUOTE]
BECAUSE THE UK WASN'T FORCED TO RATIFY THE AMENDMENTS TO THE EU, IF THE UK HAD REFUSED, THE TREATIES WOULD NOT HAVE PASSED UNTIL THEY WERE AMENDED TO THE POINT OF ACCEPTANCE, OR EXCEPTIONS WERE CREATED - AS IS WHAT HAPPENED
your posts are just a tirade of the buzzwords and bollocks that the leave campaign peddled
as for a reason as to why europe and the UK can't work together, because we just spat in the face of the entity that was the greatest example of european co-operation, having relentlessly demanded concessions and bonuses for "being britain"
why the fuck would they want to work with such a selfish entity, you don't get to have your cake and [B]fucking eat it[/B]
and sure, 52% of the country didn't want the EU, 48% did - don't make it sound like it was some unanimous decision
you don't understand the EU, you want to have your cake and eat it, you peddle buzzword bullshit like "independence"
you're the perfect leave voter
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;50945917]BECAUSE THE UK WASN'T FORCED TO RATIFY THE AMENDMENTS TO THE EU, IF THE UK HAD REFUSED, THE TREATY WOULD NOT HAVE PASSED UNTIL IT WAS AMENDED TO THE POINT OF ACCEPTANCE, OR EXCEPTIONS WERE CREATED - AS IS WHAT HAPPENED[/QUOTE]
Apparently it wasn't amended to the point of acceptance since most UK citizens didn't find them acceptable. The EU gets to push their plans on the UK over and over until it gets accepted. All it has to do is get accepted once for it to get in. It's basically how in America how TPP and many other forms of it have been spammed at congress over and over until it finally slips in. The difference however is that at least TPP
is US in origin.
[quote]we just spat in their face[/quote]
You mean by using the democratic right to leave that has been given to them since day one? The fact that the EU is reacting so poorly by it shows what a horrible and immature system it is.
"Hey guys, join us and you can freely leave whenever you want, but if you do leave we will get butthurt and try to fuck you over even at the cost of making sure everyone loses"
[quote]selfish[/quote]
Independence is selfish? Wanting an actual democratic republic is selfish?
[QUOTE=Metist;50945952]Apparently it wasn't amended to the point of acceptance since most UK citizens didn't find them acceptable. The EU gets to push their plans on the UK over and over until it gets accepted. All it has to do is get accepted once for it to get in. It's basically how in America how TPP and many other forms of it have been spammed at congress over and over until it finally slips in. The difference however is that at least TPP
is US in origin.
You mean by using the democratic right to leave that has been given to them since day one? The fact that the EU is reacting so poorly by it shows what a horrible and immature system it is.
"Hey guys, join us and you can freely leave whenever you want, but if you do leave we will get butthurt and try to fuck you over even at the cost of spiting our own face".
Independence is selfish? Wanting an actual democratic republic is selfish?[/QUOTE]
yo how is the EU corrupt
you've said it's corrupt in your posts above, now explain how it is corrupt
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;50945954]yo how is the EU corrupt[/QUOTE]
Just a quick google search on Siim Kallas.
"The Parliament didn’t even remove the commission of 2004 to 2009 which was full of questionable characters. This Commission included Siim Kallas the Anti-Fraud Commissioner who was given this role despite being charged with fraud, abuse of power and providing false information after £4.4million disappeared while he was head of Estonia’s national bank."
It's a great idea. Who would know more about fraud than someone who commits it?
[QUOTE=Metist;50945967]Just a quick google search on Siim Kallas.
"The Parliament didn’t even remove the commission of 2004 to 2009 which was full of questionable characters. This Commission included Siim Kallas the Anti-Fraud Commissioner who was given this role despite being charged with fraud, abuse of power and providing false information after £4.4million disappeared while he was head of Estonia’s national bank."
It's a great idea. Who would know more about fraud than someone who commits it?[/QUOTE]
source?
[QUOTE=Metist;50945967]Just a quick google search on Siim Kallas.
"The Parliament didn’t even remove the commission of 2004 to 2009 which was full of questionable characters. This Commission included Siim Kallas the Anti-Fraud Commissioner who was given this role despite being charged with fraud, abuse of power and providing false information after £4.4million disappeared while he was head of Estonia’s national bank."
It's a great idea. Who would know more about fraud than someone who commits it?[/QUOTE]
"Google it" is not a source.
You're not helping your argument by not providing any links.
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;50945975]source?[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.eesti.ca/the-curious-case-of-the-fraud-busting-european-commissioner/article19846[/url]
Are you going to argue against my other arguments?
[QUOTE=Metist;50946028][url]http://www.eesti.ca/the-curious-case-of-the-fraud-busting-european-commissioner/article19846[/url]
Are you going to argue against my other arguments?[/QUOTE]
i'm not going to let you weasel out i'm afraid
so has this guy been shown to have done anything corrupt while an EU commissioner?
do you consider the entire US government corrupt because Hillary Clinton is part of it, and you think she's a criminal?
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;50946040]i'm not going to let you weasel out i'm afraid
so has this guy been shown to have done anything corrupt while an EU commissioner?
[/QUOTE]
Weasel my way out of it? I am waiting for you to answer my other arguments as well.
The EU is corrupt because it has corrupt people in it and because many of them aren't democratically elected there is no way to stop that corruption.
A system is corrupt if corrupt people can be put in power without people having a say. If you want to consider the US corrupt go ahead. But at least Hillary was elected in so you can blame her being the democrat nominee on the people rather than the people having no say and corrupt people not having to answer to the people.
[QUOTE=Metist;50946073]The EU is corrupt because it has corrupt people in it[/QUOTE]
Are you serious?
This isn't how it works. If someone is corrupt, the system they're part of doesn't automatically become corrupt. What kind of logic is that?
[QUOTE=MaximLaHaxim;50946084]Are you serious?
This isn't how it works. If someone is corrupt, the system they're part of doesn't automatically become corrupt. What kind of logic is that?[/QUOTE]
The system is corrupt if there isn't a way to stop corrupt people in it.
If a corrupt person gets elected the system isn't corrupt because people voted for a corrupt person.
If a corrupt person gets undemocratically placed into power then it is a corrupt system.
I can't see how a system that allows corrupt people make law without the say of the people isn't corrupt.
[QUOTE=Metist;50946073]Weasel my way out of it? I am waiting for you to answer my other arguments as well.
The EU is corrupt because it has corrupt people in it and because many of them aren't democratically elected there is no way to stop that corruption.
A system is corrupt if corrupt people can be put in power without people having a say. If you want to consider the US corrupt go ahead. But at least Hillary was elected in so you can blame her being the democrat nominee on the people rather than the people having no say and corrupt people not having to answer to the people.[/QUOTE]
swing and a miss i'm afraid
no way to deal with corruption in commissions? well first of all there's the European Court of Auditors who are responsible for auditing the budget and responsible for checking the expenditure of funds (and is apparently so stringent that it gives the perception that there is more corruption than there actually is) [URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Court_of_Auditors[/URL]
and in an [I]actual[/I] example of corruption ([URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santer_Commission[/URL]), the entire commission was forced to resign due to multiple reports into their behaviour by the european parliament
so that's an actual example of corruption that was dealt with, you've so far provided nothing other than a [I]single[/I] commissioner who in the past [I]might[/I] have committed corrupt actions in the [I]​past[/I]
oh and also there's OLAF ([url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Anti-fraud_Office[/url])
so once again
why is the EU corrupt?
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;50945917]
you're the perfect leave voter[/QUOTE]
Not even, he's just an American who has no idea what the EU actually is or what the implications of leaving it are. Please don't take him as a representation of us.
[QUOTE=1nfiniteseed;50946218]Not even, he's just an American who has no idea what the EU actually is or what the implications of leaving it are. Please don't take him as a representation of us.[/QUOTE]
i actually value the opinions of americans and people foreign to the UK more than british people on the subject of brexit
typically an argument from someone outside of the UK is going to be more than just "WE'VE TAKEN BACK OUR ENGLAND" *beats chest*
well, except for metist, who's a trump supporter so probably buys into the "they've taken back their country" point that trump put out
I already explained. A system that allows corrupt people to be put into power without having the people decide if they want him in power or not is corrupt.
What an amazing unrelated attack. When did I ever say I support Trump? Even if I did how does that make my arguments invalid?
How come you haven't addressed the vast majority of my arguments and instead go for pointless ad hominem attacks?
Why are you ok with non democratically elected people creating laws?
[QUOTE=Metist;50946325]I already explained. A system that allows corrupt people to be put into power without having the people decide if they want him in power or not is corrupt.
What an amazing unrelated attack. When did I ever say I support Trump? Even if I did how does that make my arguments invalid?
How come you haven't addressed the vast majority of my arguments and instead go for pointless ad hominem attacks?
Why are you ok with non democratically elected people creating laws?[/QUOTE]
nah you've just dodged the part where i pointed out the EU entities responsible for managing corruption in the EU, and how an actual case of corruption came to be and was dealt with within the EU
so we're going to go back, i'm going to post this again
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;50946204]swing and a miss i'm afraid
no way to deal with corruption in commissions? well first of all there's the European Court of Auditors who are responsible for auditing the budget and responsible for checking the expenditure of funds (and is apparently so stringent that it gives the perception that there is more corruption than there actually is) [URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Court_of_Auditors[/URL]
and in an [I]actual[/I] example of corruption ([URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santer_Commission[/URL]), the entire commission was forced to resign due to multiple reports into their behaviour by the european parliament
so that's an actual example of corruption that was dealt with, you've so far provided nothing other than a [I]single[/I] commissioner who in the past [I]might[/I] have committed corrupt actions in the [I]​past[/I]
oh and also there's OLAF ([URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Anti-fraud_Office[/URL])
[/QUOTE]
and once again, has that commissioner committed any corrupt actions while in the EU?
if he hasn't, why is he an example of corruption? if he has, why is he an example of endemic corruption within the EU to the point where you call the entire system corrupt when he's the only example you've posted so far?
why did you say that commissions can't be held to account when they can and have?
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;50946333]nah you've just dodged the part where i pointed out the EU entities responsible for managing corruption in the EU, and how an actual case of corruption came to be and was dealt with within the EU
so we're going to go back, i'm going to post this again
and once again, has that commissioner committed any corrupt actions while in the EU?
if he hasn't, why is he an example of corruption? if he has, why is he an example of endemic corruption within the EU to the point where you call the entire system corrupt when he's the only example you've posted so far?[/QUOTE] So it's ok for unelected corrupt people to be put into power as long as you don't have proof that they didn't do corrupt things while in office? They shouldn't have been put into power to begin with. Why are you continuing to ignore my other arguments?
[QUOTE=Metist;50946347]So it's ok for unelected corrupt people to be put into power as long as you don't have proof that they didn't do corrupt things while in office? They shouldn't have been put into power to begin with. Why are you continuing to ignore my other arguments?[/QUOTE]
nah because i've tried that before and you just ignored my points to return the favour and we got nowhere so we're focusing on this
I've asked you to prove he was corrupt in EU office, you haven't. Can you get me some sources on him being corrupt while in office at all?
Can you give me some examples of other people being corrupt in the EU that would justify saying it's corrupt, because you've said corrupt people a lot and only given one name which you haven't backed up
[QUOTE=Metist;50946347]So it's ok for unelected corrupt people to be put into power as long as you don't have proof that they didn't do corrupt things while in office? They shouldn't have been put into power to begin with. Why are you continuing to ignore my other arguments?[/QUOTE]
if you don't have proof that they didn't do corrupt things, then they're not corrupt. it's as simple as that
what kind of outer space logic are you even using????????????
Have some of the people who claim that there are no border checks in the UK actually been outside of it? The ONLY place in Europe where I had my passport checked was in the UK, and I have a UK passport. Even in Sweden, which has an actual problem with refugees, I didn't get checked at the border.
REMEMBER BARNSLEY WOMAN
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;50946366]nah because i've tried that before and you just ignored my points to return the favour and we got nowhere so we're focusing on this
I've asked you to prove he was corrupt in EU office, you haven't. Can you get me some sources on him being corrupt while in office at all?
Can you give me some examples of other people being corrupt in the EU that would justify saying it's corrupt, because you've said corrupt people a lot and only given one name which you haven't backed up[/QUOTE]
We clearly define corrupt differently. If you have no problem with unelected corrupt individuals in the EU then ok. But you can't stop ignoring all the other arguments.
[QUOTE=Metist;50946410]We clearly define corrupt differently. If you have no problem with unelected corrupt individuals in the EU then ok. But you can't stop ignoring all the other arguments.[/QUOTE]
no you can't just make it a semantic argument because you have no evidence of actual corruption with the EU
so i'm going to assume you actually have nothing
give me another point
"Idiot with punchable face who lies to voters and fucks over country speaks at rally of other Idiot with punchable face who lies to voters and is poised to fuck over country."
Luckily, neither will win an election.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.