The 'No to the EU' campaign

[Zod]

Mrr T said:

wiggy001 said:

No. None of us did. Which is why your complacency over Turkey is obscene. Surely we must look to history to understand the future?

And as I've asked before: how do I and the rest of the British people vote against Turkey's membership if we find in 5 years that they look like they are going to be able to join?

Or a simpler question about the here and now: how do I vote against Turkey's visa-free travel arrangement that is being put in place as we speak?

Besides the fact as Zod has pointed out Turkey are a long way from EU membership. New ascension requires unanimous agreement of all members. So the UK can block Turkey joining at any time.

Yes, but Cameron wouldn't use the veto because he has signed up to the EU Commission's and CIA's plan to flood the UK and the rest of the EU with Muslims.

[Cobnapint]

Zod said:

I have explained before why Turkey has no chance whatsoever of joining the EU.

Corbyn had no chance of becoming Labour leader.

Leicester City had no chance of winning the Premiership with two games still to play.

This is the EU we are talking about here. There are ways and means, deals will be done, assurances will be given, money will talk. Turkey, with the help of those in charge that want it - will eventually become a member of the EU.

[FiF]

Zod said:

In your expert judgement.

I seem to remember you had to admit that you were wrong and I was right about Norway and EEA/EFTA agreement. So your 'expert' judgement was bang wrong there.

On your bike.

[Zod]

FiF said:

Zod said:

In your expert judgement.

I seem to remember you had to admit that you were wrong and I was right about Norway and EEA/EFTA agreement. So your 'expert' judgement was bang wrong there.

On your bike.

I admitted to being wrong about one point, Norway's right to veto, a right that it has never used and never will. Being no expert on the mechanics of the EEA and having been wrong about that, I decided to ask people who had actual knowledge in Oslo. They thought about it once a few years ago in relation to the postal services directive, but realised that the consequences would not be worth it. As one of them said, to all intents and purposes, they do not have a veto. They jus thave to live with whatever the EU comes up with and they rely on us to temper the EU's worst excesses, so they are very worried about Brexit.

I had the good grace to admit to being wrong about somthing and you cling to this as your proof that you and the planless exit crowd are right. Then when I continue to say things that go against your cherished beliefs, yo uact all upset, throwing around words like hypocrite.

Not impressive. Not at all.

Edited by Zod on Thursday 5th May 18:21

[Sam All]

Zod said:

Mrr T said:

wiggy001 said:

No. None of us did. Which is why your complacency over Turkey is obscene. Surely we must look to history to understand the future?

And as I've asked before: how do I and the rest of the British people vote against Turkey's membership if we find in 5 years that they look like they are going to be able to join?

Or a simpler question about the here and now: how do I vote against Turkey's visa-free travel arrangement that is being put in place as we speak?

Besides the fact as Zod has pointed out Turkey are a long way from EU membership. New ascension requires unanimous agreement of all members. So the UK can block Turkey joining at any time.

Yes, but Cameron wouldn't use the veto because he has signed up to the EU Commission's and CIA's plan to flood the UK and the rest of the EU with Muslims.

I agree with you

& CMD is spineless

[Zod]

Sam All said:

Zod said:

Mrr T said:

wiggy001 said:

No. None of us did. Which is why your complacency over Turkey is obscene. Surely we must look to history to understand the future?

And as I've asked before: how do I and the rest of the British people vote against Turkey's membership if we find in 5 years that they look like they are going to be able to join?

Or a simpler question about the here and now: how do I vote against Turkey's visa-free travel arrangement that is being put in place as we speak?

Besides the fact as Zod has pointed out Turkey are a long way from EU membership. New ascension requires unanimous agreement of all members. So the UK can block Turkey joining at any time.

Yes, but Cameron wouldn't use the veto because he has signed up to the EU Commission's and CIA's plan to flood the UK and the rest of the EU with Muslims.

I agree with you

I wonder how far I could push this. (my first draft ascribed the plan to the Bilderberg/Illuminati/Lizard/EU/CIA)

[Sam All]

Zod said:

Sam All said:

Zod said:

Mrr T said:

wiggy001 said:

No. None of us did. Which is why your complacency over Turkey is obscene. Surely we must look to history to understand the future?

And as I've asked before: how do I and the rest of the British people vote against Turkey's membership if we find in 5 years that they look like they are going to be able to join?

Or a simpler question about the here and now: how do I vote against Turkey's visa-free travel arrangement that is being put in place as we speak?

Besides the fact as Zod has pointed out Turkey are a long way from EU membership. New ascension requires unanimous agreement of all members. So the UK can block Turkey joining at any time.

Yes, but Cameron wouldn't use the veto because he has signed up to the EU Commission's and CIA's plan to flood the UK and the rest of the EU with Muslims.

I agree with you

I wonder how far I could push this. (my first draft ascribed the plan to the Bilderberg/Illuminati/Lizard/EU/CIA)

Throw in the lot, you will be right on something

[FiF]

Not meant to be impressive, just pointing out when you're being a hypocrite. You don't have to like it, it clearly touches a nerve. Good.

Time we had this again

Norway, we do not need Brussels to tell us what to do.

[Zod]

FiF said:

Not meant to be impressive, just pointing out when you're being a hypocrite. You don't have to like it, it clearly touches a nerve. Good.

Time we had this again

Norway, we do not need Brussels to tell us what to do.

An article from a Norwegian politician who is anti-EU. So what?

[FiF]

Zod said:

FiF said:

Not meant to be impressive, just pointing out when you're being a hypocrite. You don't have to like it, it clearly touches a nerve. Good.

Time we had this again

Norway, we do not need Brussels to tell us what to do.

An article from a Norwegian politician who is anti-EU. So what?

Norwegian State Minister probably trumps your anonymous twonks.

[Zod]

FiF said:

Zod said:

FiF said:

Not meant to be impressive, just pointing out when you're being a hypocrite. You don't have to like it, it clearly touches a nerve. Good.

Time we had this again

Norway, we do not need Brussels to tell us what to do.

An article from a Norwegian politician who is anti-EU. So what?

Norwegian State Minister probably trumps your anonymous twonks.

If you read your own article, you will understand that she is not speaking in her capacity as a minister.

[FiF]

Zod said:

FiF said:

Zod said:

FiF said:

Not meant to be impressive, just pointing out when you're being a hypocrite. You don't have to like it, it clearly touches a nerve. Good.

Time we had this again

Norway, we do not need Brussels to tell us what to do.

An article from a Norwegian politician who is anti-EU. So what?

Norwegian State Minister probably trumps your anonymous twonks.

If you read your own article, you will understand that she is not speaking in her capacity as a minister.

True, still not relevant really. Any more straws you'd like to grasp.

[///ajd]

Zod said:

FiF said:

Zod said:

FiF said:

Not meant to be impressive, just pointing out when you're being a hypocrite. You don't have to like it, it clearly touches a nerve. Good.

Time we had this again

Norway, we do not need Brussels to tell us what to do.

An article from a Norwegian politician who is anti-EU. So what?

Norwegian State Minister probably trumps your anonymous twonks.

If you read your own article, you will understand that she is not speaking in her capacity as a minister.

It's interesting article.

It should be noted that Anne is aiming to dismiss the view of the former Norwegian "Foreign Secretary" Espen Barth Eide, who has made various arguments for their limited influence on the EU, inline with Zods position.

Anne was indeed a minister too - albeit for "regional development", arguably a much more junior position that pukka Foreign Secretary, and also it could be said a bit "insular"?

Her opinion is valid but should be seen in this context.

Its like Greg Clark disagreeing with Phillip Hammond.

(Greg & Phillip are both remainers, but the point is most people have heard of Phillip).

Edited by ///ajd on Thursday 5th May 19:03

[Zod]

FiF said:

Zod said:

FiF said:

Zod said:

FiF said:

Not meant to be impressive, just pointing out when you're being a hypocrite. You don't have to like it, it clearly touches a nerve. Good.

Time we had this again

Norway, we do not need Brussels to tell us what to do.

An article from a Norwegian politician who is anti-EU. So what?

Norwegian State Minister probably trumps your anonymous twonks.

If you read your own article, you will understand that she is not speaking in her capacity as a minister.

True, still not relevant really. Any more straws you'd like to grasp.

Posting laughing smileys doesn't somehow bolster your point. She is just a person giving her opinion. She is not a minister for that purpose. Her opinion is no more valid than that of another Norwegian politician or civil service lawyer with the opposite opinion.

[FiF]

Zod said:

Posting laughing smileys doesn't somehow bolster your point. She is just a person giving her opinion. She is not a minister for that purpose. Her opinion is no more valid than that of another Norwegian politician or civil service lawyer with the opposite opinion.

Your post 17:38, first one with the laughing smiley. But now you object to it. What's that make you?
Waste of time and bandwidth arguing any more, neither one of us are going to shift.

[Zod]

FiF said:

Zod said:

Posting laughing smileys doesn't somehow bolster your point. She is just a person giving her opinion. She is not a minister for that purpose. Her opinion is no more valid than that of another Norwegian politician or civil service lawyer with the opposite opinion.

Your post 17:38, first one with the laughing smiley. But now you object to it. What's that make you?
Waste of time and bandwidth arguing any more, neither one of us are going to shift.

Where did I suggest that the use of smileys per se was to be eschewed? My use of one at 1738 was to poke fun at the absolute nature of tb's post. They have their uses, but not as punctuation or random additions to a post.

[FiF]

Zod said:

Where did I suggest that the use of smileys per se was to be eschewed? My use of one at 1738 was to poke fun at the absolute nature of tb's post. They have their uses, but not as punctuation or random additions to a post.

Absolutely ridiculous post. So we were supposed to know somehow, telepathy maybe, that you were commenting about TB's input when you only quoted my post and nothing else. Well, nothing to add to this discussion as you really have lost the plot. Completely barking, you cannot be taken seriously anymore. Sorry but good day to you. Out.

[turbobloke]

Zod said:

turbobloke said:

wiggy001 said:

And as I've asked before: how do I and the rest of the British people vote against Turkey's membership if we find in 5 years that they look like they are going to be able to join?

Or a simpler question about the here and now: how do I vote against Turkey's visa-free travel arrangement that is being put in place as we speak?

Good questions.

"Under the terms of the 'one in one out' deal - which came into force in March - for every 'irregular migrant' returned from Greece to Turkey, the EU will take in a Syrian refugee from Turkish camps."

"Brussels also promised extra cash to Turkey to deal with the influx of refugees from its neighbouring state, while the country will see its EU membership bid fast-tracked."

and these are quotations from what source?

Obvious surely? The source where we've been discussing content and you've been shooting the messenger.

The source with this:

"There is still work to be done as a matter of urgency but if Turkey sustains the progress made, they can meet the remaining benchmarks."
(European Commission bureaucrat Frans Timmermans)

[///ajd]

turbobloke said:

Zod said:

turbobloke said:

wiggy001 said:

And as I've asked before: how do I and the rest of the British people vote against Turkey's membership if we find in 5 years that they look like they are going to be able to join?

Or a simpler question about the here and now: how do I vote against Turkey's visa-free travel arrangement that is being put in place as we speak?

Good questions.

"Under the terms of the 'one in one out' deal - which came into force in March - for every 'irregular migrant' returned from Greece to Turkey, the EU will take in a Syrian refugee from Turkish camps."

"Brussels also promised extra cash to Turkey to deal with the influx of refugees from its neighbouring state, while the country will see its EU membership bid fast-tracked."

and these are quotations from what source?

Obvious surely? The source where we've been discussing content and you've been shooting the messenger.

The source with this:

"There is still work to be done as a matter of urgency but if Turkey sustains the progress made, they can meet the remaining benchmarks."
(European Commission bureaucrat Frans Timmermans)

Is this the same Timmermans?

Mr Timmermans today told Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan his country was "moving further away" from Europe on human rights in a warning over future EU membership.

[turbobloke]

One for Zod...

A major leak from Brussels has revealed the NHS will be killed off if Britain remains in the European Union