Astute
Well-Known Member
So losing the right to vote means being more democratic?
We all knew that you would try and twist it. But you could have at least put a bit of realism into it where someone might get taken in by it.
So losing the right to vote means being more democratic?No. It is about replacing the commission with a real government. The EU Parliament and a second chamber made up of countries‘ representatives - as in the German federal system. If they don’t agree to what is, in effect, more democracy, then they automatically leave. This abolishes veto rights.
Your posts confirm what I said.
I also said that the CDU, Merkel‘s Party, don’t want to support this. One reason being they don’t see it as a priority.
You said Merkel doesn’t want it. I only know what her party have said. Maybe she agrees with her party. Her party will decide as she is not a dictator as you claim.
So losing the right to vote means being more democratic?
We all knew that you would try and twist it. But you could have at least put a bit of realism into it where someone might get taken in by it.
The people’s representatives deciding as opposed to individual countries opting out is more democratic. No one is losing their right to vote. It is majority voting as opposed to countries voting. If you are in a minority, then your vote doesn’t count, as you keep reminding me. That is not losing rights, just being outvoted.
The EU parliament at the moment doesn’t vote on country lines. It votes according to the people’s representatives. Not even on strict party lines.
I am absolutely for doing away with some of countries‘ rights to strengthen voters‘ rights. Which means countries having to accept European voters’ decisions. Far more democratic.
You seem to have a problem with democracy. You didn’t like Juncker being appointed 26:2 by an electoral college. You say the UK didn’t have any say because it „lost“ a vote.
Why won't you admit to the truth?The people’s representatives deciding as opposed to individual countries opting out is more democratic. No one is losing their right to vote. It is majority voting as opposed to countries voting. If you are in a minority, then your vote doesn’t count, as you keep reminding me. That is not losing rights, just being outvoted.
The EU parliament at the moment doesn’t vote on country lines. It votes according to the people’s representatives. Not even on strict party lines.
I am absolutely for doing away with some of countries‘ rights to strengthen voters‘ rights. Which means countries having to accept European voters’ decisions. Far more democratic.
You seem to have a problem with democracy. You didn’t like Juncker being appointed 26:2 by an electoral college. You say the UK didn’t have any say because it „lost“ a vote.
Oh, if you could just understanding the meaning of the word!
Why won't you admit to the truth?
'United States of Europe by 2025': German SPD leader names his price for joining Merkel coalition
And taken from it is......
"I want a new constitutional treaty to establish the United States of Europe. A Europe that is no threat to its member states, but a beneficial addition,” he said in a speech to his party conference.
Under Mr Schulz’s proposals, Brussels would be given power over individual member states’ foreign and domestic policy, as well as taxes.
Countries who refuse to sign up to a new federal Europe should automatically lose their EU membership, he said.
....so which part of Brussels taking over countries foreign and domestic policy, as well as taxes makes the EU more democratic?
So he wants a federal Europe. Do you know the meaning Mart?
Just in case you don't......
A federal system ofgovernment consists of a group of regions that are controlled by a central government.
....yes. A group of regions controlled by a central government. And that is exactly what he has said.
Why won't you admit to the truth?
'United States of Europe by 2025': German SPD leader names his price for joining Merkel coalition
And taken from it is......
"I want a new constitutional treaty to establish the United States of Europe. A Europe that is no threat to its member states, but a beneficial addition,” he said in a speech to his party conference.
Under Mr Schulz’s proposals, Brussels would be given power over individual member states’ foreign and domestic policy, as well as taxes.
Countries who refuse to sign up to a new federal Europe should automatically lose their EU membership, he said.
....so which part of Brussels taking over countries foreign and domestic policy, as well as taxes makes the EU more democratic?
I quoted the Telegraph who quoted Schulz.You are quoting the Telegraph. Bear in mind that they are anti EU. They say Brussels. They mean a parliament elected by the peoiple of the EU situated in Brussels and a second chamber consisting of memeber countries representatives.
I quoted the Telegraph who quoted Schulz.
And I quoted the Oxford dictionary as well in case you tried to make out that the meaning was wrong as it is the opposite of what you are trying to make out.
Yes. Join the federal government or leave the EU.
Is The Guardian good enough for you?
Martin Schulz wants 'United States of Europe' within eight years
So what is your excuse for the Guardian then?Schulz did not say „Brussels will govern Europe“... the Telegraph did. „Brussels“ is a red flag for leavers. That’s why they said it. Schultz is talking about The EU Parliament and a Second Chamber to increase the power of people in Europe who can vote representatives in or out of power. It is called „more democracy in Europe“ - not „Brussels“.
Brussels is only the seat of the Parliament. It could be somewhere else, but it wouldn’t affect Schultz‘ vision.
What is the opposite of what I trying to make out? I just agreed with the definition. Making things up yet again.
I keep confirming that either you don't know what is going on or that you are twisting the truth.You keep confirming what I am saying. What is your point?
Is The Guardian good enough for you?
Martin Schulz wants 'United States of Europe' within eight years
I keep confirming that either you don't know what is going on or that you are twisting the truth.
You even get a like from someone who links National Socialist web sites. You are the so called democrat. Martin Schultz wants more democracy. You try to twist a request for more democracy into a dictatorship.
More democracy for each individual country to make its own decisions and laws through its own elected parliament?
Schulz told delegates that he wanted EU member states to sign off on a “constitutional treaty” that committed the bloc to take steps towards a federal Europe – a proposal likely to be met with some resistance from Merkel and other EU leaders.
“Such a constitutional treaty has to be written by a convention that includes civil society and the people. This constitutional treaty will then have to be put to the member states and those that don’t approve it will automatically have to leave the EU,” Schulz said.
So what does this mean Mart?
Lose your vote on the EU taking over the way you govern your country or leave the EU.What it says. If you don't like it, you can leave... as the UK is doing. It is the only way to move forward and improve democracy in the EU.
Merkel has said she doesn't want it.Again, exactly what I said when you said it was going to happen, and I also said that Merkel's party ( Dobrindt as an example ) sees other things as more important. Everything as I said. I would be for it, but the right and Wagenrecht from the extreme left are all against a federal Europe. That doesn't mean that they are against an EU Finance Minister though. The CDU have already said they would agree with that.
So again, apart from constantly proving me right, what is your point?
So what is your excuse for the Guardian then?
Lose your vote on the EU taking over the way you govern your country or leave the EU.
That's democracy?
So make a statement against the Guardian then. They say the opposite to you and they are pro EU.The Guardian doesn't need an excuse, but the Telegraph has obviously bent the truth as I explained.
I now remember why I started ignoring you on this thread.Having more say in the way the EU governs your country. It doesn't have 100% power anyway, and that has not been suggested. His model is the German Federal System which is more democratic than either the EU system or the British System. In adddition to the federal government in Berlin, the 16 Staes in Germany still have limited powers.
It is democracy. Look it up. If you can choose to agree or not to agree, it is democracy.
My vote would be for Schulz' proposal.
BTW: If people claim to be representing the silent majority, but always get hammered in elections, it proves that they are either, not democrats or are bullshitters. The AfD claim to represent far more people than they actually do. Luckily Germany is a democracy and they got hammered 87,5% to 12,5%.
Merkel has said she doesn't want it.
Is the Guardian on your leave the EU list now?
So make a statement against the Guardian then. They say the opposite to you and they are pro EU.
I now remember why I started ignoring you on this thread.
It is si obvious what the truth is. Every news outlet is saying the same. Even those in America that say we are mad to leave the EU. At least they have stopped calling us mad now.
So why are all the pro EU news outlet saying the same?
Oh yes. Mart is the only one who understands because he has lived in Germany most of his life. The rest has been lost in translation although Schulz translated it himself.
Yeah yeah yeah.
I now remember why I started ignoring you on this thread.
It is si obvious what the truth is. Every news outlet is saying the same. Even those in America that say we are mad to leave the EU. At least they have stopped calling us mad now.
So why are all the pro EU news outlet saying the same?
Oh yes. Mart is the only one who understands because he has lived in Germany most of his life. The rest has been lost in translation although Schulz translated it himself.
Yeah yeah yeah.
The Guardian says similar to what you brushed off because it was from The Times. So how about admitting that The Guardian is right or call it wrong for some reason.What is opposite to me? I am intrigued.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?