|
Post by mrsonde on May 31, 2018 17:54:33 GMT 1
That jumped-up arrogant little shit Juncker has just poroclaimed that he will respond to Trump's tariffs (a policy he campaigned and was elected on) by "immediately" responding in kind - a policy that no one voted for, and he has absolutely no authority to impose. It is no doubt open to him to so interpret the Lisbon Treaty to give him such authority, however, as it is to peremptorily sack and appoint replacements for democratically elected Prime Ministers, Finance Ministers - or indeed whole governments - if he or some faceless cabal of Franfurt bankers so chooses. We must go along with such diktats, it would appear. Thus an unelected bureaucrat can command at whim the "parliament" we're still nominally signed up to that we enter into a trade war with the United States, whether we want to or not, whether it's in our interests or not.
So much for Aqua's preposterous assertion that the EU decisions we must obey whether we wish to or not are of "no importance" and do not contradict our sovereignty as a democratic nation.
|
|
|
Post by fascinating on Jun 1, 2018 19:51:44 GMT 1
I thought people were saying that, following the verdict (bloody tablet won't let me type b r e x I t), we would be able to get good trade deals with USA.
|
|
|
Post by aquacultured on Jun 2, 2018 0:55:46 GMT 1
That jumped-up arrogant little shit Juncker has just poroclaimed that he will respond to Trump's tariffs (a policy he campaigned and was elected on) by "immediately" responding in kind - a policy that no one voted for, and he has absolutely no authority to impose. It is no doubt open to him to so interpret the Lisbon Treaty to give him such authority, however, as it is to peremptorily sack and appoint replacements for democratically elected Prime Ministers, Finance Ministers - or indeed whole governments - if he or some faceless cabal of Franfurt bankers so chooses. We must go along with such diktats, it would appear. Thus an unelected bureaucrat can command at whim the "parliament" we're still nominally signed up to that we enter into a trade war with the United States, whether we want to or not, whether it's in our interests or not. So much for Aqua's preposterous assertion that the EU decisions we must obey whether we wish to or not are of "no importance" and do not contradict our sovereignty as a democratic nation. As I often say, I'm not in love with the way things are done in the EU - or the UK or the USA ( especially the USA), come to that. But we have what we have: the mess of 'democracy', which we have to put up with. As far as I know, Juncker had a very long career as a national Luxembourg elected politician, including as PM and Minister of Finances, and was elected by the EU Parliament on a big majority as Commission President, after quite a lot of primary-type contests, involving 28 states. Trump was elected on a minority national vote, by votes from an electoral college from 50 states. So was GWBush. Both votes are still suspect, as is the validity of the electoral college. Trump has so far ruled principally by Executive Orders, with little legislative oversight, and his signature is getting bigger and scarier every time. I think that as an affront to democracy he beats Juncker hands down.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Jun 2, 2018 11:38:59 GMT 1
That jumped-up arrogant little shit Juncker has just poroclaimed that he will respond to Trump's tariffs (a policy he campaigned and was elected on) by "immediately" responding in kind - a policy that no one voted for, and he has absolutely no authority to impose. It is no doubt open to him to so interpret the Lisbon Treaty to give him such authority, however, as it is to peremptorily sack and appoint replacements for democratically elected Prime Ministers, Finance Ministers - or indeed whole governments - if he or some faceless cabal of Franfurt bankers so chooses. We must go along with such diktats, it would appear. Thus an unelected bureaucrat can command at whim the "parliament" we're still nominally signed up to that we enter into a trade war with the United States, whether we want to or not, whether it's in our interests or not. So much for Aqua's preposterous assertion that the EU decisions we must obey whether we wish to or not are of "no importance" and do not contradict our sovereignty as a democratic nation. As I often say, I'm not in love with the way things are done in the EU - or the UK or the USA ( especially the USA), come to that. Okay, that's interesting. What is it about the democratic systems of the UK and especially the USA that you're "not in love with"? I cannot imagine what it might be that could possibly be worse than how the EU is constituted! No we don't. Newsflash: we're leaving the EU! After for the first time a genuine democratic vote on the matter. Really, that's what you think you know? Then tell me, who was the candidate Juncker was running against? That "parliament" so elected with such a big majority? There wasn't one. He was appointed by the Council. By a majority, yes, behind closed doors, and also against no real credible opposition (I think the Greens put up someone like Skippy No-Brain, if I recall correctly.) I also recall Cameron objected. Not that the Brits matter - we couldn't have a candidate run in the first place, because we're not signed up to Schengen. We'd also have to search high and low for someone with the required fluency in French that satisfied the frogs - believe me, not an easy task. All the documents coming out of Brussels are written in academic French, using a specially reserved obscure tense structure that is only taught at degree level, and that even most native French can't follow. I had to learn it once to follow a history book my neighbour had written - it's incredibly complex and counter-intuitive, almost medieval. Being able to speak this High French is a strict requirement (if the French so dictate) to even be nominated for this post that has such sweeping dictatorial powers - the power to unilaterally dictate that every member undertakes a potentially catastrophic trade war with the world's largest economy, for example! No preliminary contests. If your party group does well in the parliamentary elections, you can nominate for the Council's consideration. If you're not a Brit -UKIP couldn't have put forward a nominee, even though they're still the largest party from Britain there - and can speak High French, that is. Just, and for well-understood beforehand and very sensible reasons, well foreseen by the framers of the Constitution. So was JFK, and Truman. It's alright if it's a Democrat? Bush, maybe - but in that case it's the Supreme Court system that's the suspect bit. Obama started that one! And several of his Orders, unlike Trump's, flagrantly broke the law. I tell you one Order he never issued, however. The one he repeatedly promised would be the first act he followed if he was elected - closing down the Gitmo camp. Nonsense. He was fairly elected, in a transparent and well-constructed electoral process. The money required to run and win (thanks to the way the Democratic Party has rigged it) is the only really serious objection to that system - and Trump's the last candidate you could disapprove of for that charge. Now, if Hillary had won instead, you'd have much more of a fair case - the candidate would have won by overwhelming spending power, relying on a hugely disproportionate bias from the two heavily populated high-immigrant high-welfare dependent States of California and New York.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Jun 2, 2018 12:16:17 GMT 1
I thought people were saying that, following the verdict (bloody tablet won't let me type b r e x I t), we would be able to get good trade deals with USA. Newsflash: Brexit hasn't happened yet. Trump made it quite clear several months ago that Britain wouldn't have been included in his retaliatory tariffs, and for once (unlike every other President I can think of) there's no reason to doubt his word.
|
|
|
Post by jean on Jun 2, 2018 12:52:03 GMT 1
...All the documents coming out of Brussels are written in academic French, using a specially reserved obscure tense structure that is only taught at degree level, and that even most native French can't follow. I had to learn it once to follow a history book my neighbour had written - it's incredibly complex and counter-intuitive, almost medieval. Being able to speak this High French is a strict requirement... Are you referrng to the passé historique?It's not much used now, true, and its forms are distinctive when compared with other tenses. But hardly incredibly so. But it's only used for narrative in the past. And anyway, it's not that difficult to follow. (Or else you're just making things up.)
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Jun 2, 2018 13:00:16 GMT 1
...All the documents coming out of Brussels are written in academic French, using a specially reserved obscure tense structure that is only taught at degree level, and that even most native French can't follow. I had to learn it once to follow a history book my neighbour had written - it's incredibly complex and counter-intuitive, almost medieval. Being able to speak this High French is a strict requirement... Are you referrng to the passé historique?It's not much used now, true, and its forms are distinctive when compared with other tenses. But hardly incredibly so. Yep - and it is used. It's mandatory, for any academic text. It's the way the Academy "preserves" the "purity" of the language. Or, if you're as cynical as I am, the way they preserve their elite privileges. No - this is the way academic texts must be written, whether they're about history or not (I had a discussion with a Brazilian scientist in Paris a few years ago, who complained that he couldn't understand the translations - he was perfectly fluent in French, having lived and worked there for years - of his own papers about the immune system!) It's supposed to convey a divine-like objective authority. Not once you've learned it - but you do have to learn it. You remember from school learning French verbs and tense agreements, perchance? Do stop lying, Jean, it gets very tiresome.
|
|
|
Post by alancalverd on Jun 2, 2018 13:23:54 GMT 1
I have no trouble reading EU Directives in French. Sometimes it's the only way to understand the idiocy and ignorance behind them, in order to prevent the idiocy becoming UK law.
|
|
|
Post by jean on Jun 2, 2018 13:26:17 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Jun 2, 2018 13:29:38 GMT 1
I have no trouble reading EU Directives in French. Sometimes it's the only way to understand the idiocy and ignorance behind them, in order to prevent the idiocy becoming UK law. That's not the issue - it's easy enough to simply skip the grammatical structures and still follow the sense. The issue is that the French presevre the right to unilaterally say to any candidate for the presidency - he/she can't speak French well enough. There are plenty of other quirky little stipulations cobbled together by the French and Germans to ensure that they can effectively appoint which willing puppet they want to the presidency, and keep anyone remotely likely to be difficult on the outside.
|
|
|
Post by jean on Jun 2, 2018 13:33:36 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Jun 2, 2018 13:35:52 GMT 1
What have I "made up"?! It is not the past tense - it's the classical past tense, that no one ever uses except in academic texts. It's as difficult to learn as every other French tense, with all the same irregularities. There's no "linguistic science" involved, you liar. Now, stop delaying me, you tiresomely insulting witch. Can you never make a point in a civil manner? You women really are a pain, and an utter disgrace to your whole sex.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Jun 2, 2018 13:37:51 GMT 1
Ffs. As I said, you're an intellectual disgrace.
|
|
|
Post by jean on Jun 2, 2018 13:39:30 GMT 1
It seems you really do not understand the meaning of or else.
It further seems you do not understand the distiction between a past tense, one of several (and not much used in comparison with the others) and the past tense, which is a status I never claimed for the passé historique.
Let's remember what you actually wrote to begin with:
(There is of course no such thing as High French. Maybe you were thinking of Hochdeutsch.)
No wonder your posts are hopelessly confused, to the extent that it is not worth anyone's while to decipher them.
|
|
|
Post by alancalverd on Jun 2, 2018 16:24:16 GMT 1
That's not the issue - it's easy enough to simply skip the grammatical structures and still follow the sense. If that's what you do, you are missing half the fun. We solved this problem in the International Electrotechncial Commission by appointing Canadian editors, thus reducing publication time from years to weeks. The Frogs naturally complained that the Canucks didn't speak proper French, so we excluded the Frogs from participating in the committee on the grounds that the Yanks/Aussies/Indians said they didn't speak proper English. After a few pints Maurice said "'ow you say....for chrissake....let Pierre write ze bloody book" and common sense reigned.
|
|