EnjoyingTheSun wrote:Lol Erol playing to the gallery. I’ll write this carefully as your reading comprehension seems slow.
You do not think you play to the gallery ? For me your whole 'give me a yes / no' answers to a loaded question is just that. I responded in kind but I did not and do not 'start' such behaviours. Yet I am accused of such by someone who does pro actively start such things ? Feels very unfair to me. Nor will I make out you do this because that is what 'those on the right do'. I will make out you do them because I see
you do them.
EnjoyingTheSun wrote:The list was printed, did I say it was true? No. I said that considering it will get the usual fake news venom I wager that much of it will come true.
You are arguing that some or much of the things in the document will come true eventually. For me that entirely misses the point of why that document is fairly and justly called 'fake news'. It does not , like your spin, claim that these things are what is going to happen and the way the EU is heading. It claims that these things have already been agreed by all parties. This is just not true. It is a lie. It is designed to mislead people in to thinking that without any member state having to agree anything further that these things will now happen on the dates specified. Yet you still make out that me calling it 'fake news' on that basis is 'venom'. It is not.
The things you say may well come to pass but the point, the most important point, that you do not mention, is that any change to the right of individual members vetos can only happen with consent of those individual members. It is just a fact that they have, still have and continue to have a veto on any changes to their veto. This is the egregious lie that is in the document, that you ignore and dismiss. It makes out that this agreement has
already happened. It has not. Yes the Lisbon treaty did change which areas were subject to individual vetos and which were not but this was done with the
individual separate consent of each and every member state, including the UK. Any further changes require the same.
EnjoyingTheSun wrote:Then I asked you a yes and no question because let’s be honest Erol you say a lot of words but never answer anything that doesn’t suit.
Everyone chooses what to reply to and what to ignore when responding on forums like these. I do it and you do it (if you want examples just ask but you must know you do it). What I try not to do and sometimes do end up doing only in 'retaliation' is to constantly call other's out for doing it whilst ignoring the fact that I also do it. You repeatedly 'call out' others for not answering the question and usually a heavily loaded question at that, vastly more regularly than I, or just about any other poster here, does imo and yet you seem oblivious to
your habit of doing exactly the same. I think that habit / tactic / technique, that you use so much, is 'playing to the audience' if I am frank.
I am saying the document is fake news because it is has blatant lies in it, claims that are factually incorrect and not true. It does not say that certain things will inevitably happen in the future. It say that these things have
already been agreed and are going to happen now on set dates without the need for any further consent from anyone. This is not true and it what I have been saying all along and that you just write off as 'not saying anything'.
EnjoyingTheSun wrote:You don't answer but flip it back with ROC veto, yes or no. I reply I am not buying into that time scale and say that ROC will lose their veto in time. To me that answers the question.
The yes / no thing was in retaliation. You started that. I was saying the document was fake news and to refute that claim you tried to force me in to your yes/no answer. The point is the document is fake news, designed with the specific
intent to mislead,
regardless of what may happen in the future by
future agreement and individual consent of members because it claims as fact that these things are now happening
without any need for future consent from individual members or any ability for those member to resist them if they want to.
EnjoyingTheSun wrote:So you come back with won’t answer the question eh? Now you aren’t a stupid man but just have the usual left hypocrisy and spin.
It is not hypocrisy or spin to be frustrated by you trying to make out the blatant lies in the document are not blatant lies designed to mislead. Again you post as if you are genuinely unaware of how
your posts and behaviour here can seem like spin or hypocrisy. The original question as far as I am concerned was 'is that document fake new or not'. It is and regardless of what may happen in the future as I have explained. To me your whole approach of changing it to 'these things will happen some time sooner or later' was indeed you 'spinning' as was your 'just give a yes / no' answer was 'playing to the gallery'. I am also fed up with this whole 'because that is what the left do' rhetoric of yours. The idea that the 'right' does not spin (or any number of other things you ascribe to the 'left') is so patently false but more than that I try and ascribe to you the things that
you do and say. I do not ascribe to you false generalisations about the 'right' generically. As an example of the difference, I will and have talked about my 'issues' with say the Daily Mail (as it was under Dacre). You will talk about 'Guradianistas. You personalise it and tar anyone you disagree with with the broadest of brushes that more often than not apply just the same to the 'right' anyway. It is for me a tedious and wearing approach to discussion with you here in text.
EnjoyingTheSun wrote: Let’s amend this list and agree that it hasn’t been signed off, although let’s be honest we would never know what has been agreed under the table.
This is the whole crux of the matter for me.
It has not been signed off. In order for it to be signed off requires the individual consent of each and every member separately. They
may choose to consent to these things at some point in the future but they can not be imposed on any member state if they are adamant that they do not want to agree to such. They have a veto. That is fact. Speculating that things get agreed in private without 'our' knowledge is just that speculation. Fact. Speculation. These things will happen if all the members states individually agree to them happening and will not and can not happen as long as a member state says they will not accept them. That is the truth but not one that suits your agenda I suspect.
EnjoyingTheSun wrote: I say at least two thirds of those things will come to pass in 10-15 years. The rest will happen within the next 25 years.
If you are saying they will happen even if a given member state is adamant and resolute that they do not want them to happen, then yes you are in my view undoubtedly scaremongering.
EnjoyingTheSun wrote: Maybe for ease just quote those two questons and an answer in a separate post. I know you won't answer but I want to be fair and if by some miracle you could give a simple unspun answer to the question I'd hate for it to be lost in 3 pages of Guardianism.
And so it goes on. Can the RoC be forced by the EU against it firm and determined will to give up it's veto on Turkey's entry ? No it can not. Yes the EU may try and 'bully' it , it may try and argue persistently for years and years that the RoC does not need that veto and it may try and offer it all sorts of 'quid pro quo' incentives to trade for giving it up. That is politics but the simple plain fact is that if the RoC stands firm on this issue it can not be forced to give this up against it's will. That is the truth and the claim in the document that it has
already given it up and this will be implemented in 2020 is a
lie. There is not other word for it than lie and no amount of spin changes this. It has NOT been agreed and can ONLY be agreed with the CONSENT of the RoC.
erol wrote:No by you guys I mean the guys who will pee on your head and try and convince you it is warm rain.
What is that if not 'playing to the gallery' ? And you throw around the accusation of hypocrisy more than any other poster on this forum that I can think of ?