welovesundaysatspace

44 minutes ago, roobaa01 said:

1. you find answers to that merkur.de headline "who are fw" =wer sind die freien waehler ?

No, I didn’t. You claimed their program makes them more right than the CSU, please explain what exactly in the program. 

44 minutes ago, roobaa01 said:

success to be with 22 mandates with the 1rst try in parliament.

They got -2.2 less than in the last general election 

44 minutes ago, roobaa01 said:

success to push spd below 10.

They didn’t push the SPD below 10. The SPD lost to ALL parties, but the most votes to the Green Party and CSU. 

34 minutes ago, roobaa01 said:

fw is right from csu acc. to their program,

What exactly in their program do you consider “right from csu”? They’re conservatives like the CSU. 

Quote

 the afd had achieved only single figures in previous state elections schleswig -holstein, hamburg, lower sxonia 6 to 8 %, hence now 10.2 is a great success

They had 12.4 in Bavaria in the last general election. That’s -2.2. Not sure how -2.2 is a great success. 

1 hour ago, roobaa01 said:

fw 2.4 %, afd 10.2 % they are right from the csu together plus 12.6 

FW is not right from the CSU. They’re essentially the same under a different brand. Conservatives. 

AfD got less votes than in the last general election (-2.2). 

10 minutes ago, Burma Bill said:

Great news - the writings on the "wall" for Merkel. Let us hope other Brussels dictatorial elite are ousted from power.

If everyone is voting for the Green like in Bavaria I could live with that. 

9 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

Go back to the original referendum vote - which was to leave.

 

There was no 'hard/soft' brexit option on the ballot paper, just leave - yes or no - and the result was 'yes - leave', as already pointed out in my previous post:-

So who’s deciding what was on the ballot paper and how people were supposed to interpret it? You? The Brexit campaign? Boris? Is that really how we “respect” democracy? 

22 minutes ago, vogie said:

But a soft Brexit is not Brexit. David Cameron said before the the referendum that it meant leaving the single market, everybody was well informed no matter what remainers believe was said.

David Cameron said that. Others said something differently. The ballot paper didn’t mention any specifics at all. And, technically, leaving the EU is something completely different than any future relationships; you can very well leave the EU (which will happen anyway) and then strike a deal to stay in the single market with its four freedoms. 

So what does “respecting the referendum result” actually mean when everyone had a different understanding about what he’s voting for or against? 

18 minutes ago, vogie said:

But a soft Brexit is not Brexit. David Cameron said before the the referendum that it meant leaving the single market, everybody was well informed no matter what remainers believe was said.

David Cameron said that. Other said something differently. The ballot paper didn’t mention any specifically at all. And, technically, leaving the EU is something completely different than any future relationships. 

So what does “respecting the referendum result” actually mean when everyone had a different understanding about what he’s voting for or against? 

1 hour ago, Thingamabob said:

Problem is that neither May nor her husband, nor Hammond, nor the useless civil servant Robbins, want Brexit to happen. Hence their covert efforts to avoid any agreement with the EU. Traitors one and all.

You don’t need any “agreement with the EU” for “Brexit to happen”. So how is there any traitor? 

28 minutes ago, vinny41 said:

According to Autoexpress September’s figures show dramatic downturn in new car market, with diesel sales down 42.5 per cent

That supports the Land Rover spokesperson’s Statement that “Brexit  is (...) not the only [challenge]”.

36 minutes ago, melvinmelvin said:

And they are willing to carry the cost of the "out".

I highly doubt that. At the time of the referendum, little to no people knew “the cost of the ‘out’”. People were told that everything would be easy and wonderful and voted under that impression. 

57 minutes ago, Retiredandhappyhere said:

(...) the EU always comes to an agreement on anything only at the eleventh hour. (...) I feel sure that he would be happier if (...) doom and gloom for the UK came to fruition.

How does the first rule out the latter? There are not one but two things that need to happen for no “doom and gloom”: an agreement (at the eleventh hour or earlier), but one that actually prevents “doom and gloom“. That’s two quite big assumptions. 

Banana republic. Can’t take that nation of clowns seriously anymore. 

40 minutes ago, CanterbrigianBangkoker said:

how about actually providing me with some evidence to the contrary of what I and other informed posters have been stating?

When you accuse someone of something, it's up to you to provide evidence for your accusations. What if someone asked you to providing some evidence that you're not a kiddy fiddler? 

What a banana republic. 

4 hours ago, riclag said:

innocent until proven guilty (...) even for a job interview!

You obviously haven’t hired many people in your life. 

4 hours ago, riclag said:

innocent until proven guilty (...) even for a job interview!

You obviously haven’t hired many people in your life. 

5 minutes ago, CG1 Blue said:

There are many examples of the EU bending the rules when it suits them.

It’s not true that the EU is “bending rules”, and if it was, here it wouldn’t even suit the EU. 

7 minutes ago, CG1 Blue said:

So you believe the EU would be obliged to strike the same deal with Bulgaria if the Bulgarian people voted to leave the EU?

The EU isn’t obliged to strike a deal with anyone. Not after someone leaves, and not with any other third country.  

12 minutes ago, CG1 Blue said:

Why would club membership be less attractive for Finland, Belgium, Romania, Bulgaria, in fact for any other member state if the UK had an orderly exit and a strong ongoing partnership with the EU? Why does that make the EU less attractive for other members?

Why would anyone want to be a member when they could get the same benefits, customized, without the obligations, as a non-member? 

23 minutes ago, CG1 Blue said:

Why would the EU be so worried about the single market breaking up?

That’s what the U.K. is asking for. The single market comes as a package; the UK wants to break up the package into some customized deal. A bit like those people argueing with the clerk when there’s a promotion. Not sure what the EU should be worried about though. 

23 minutes ago, CG1 Blue said:

  If the EU and single market are so good, then surely no other country would be tempted to leave?

As long as you keep the membership attractive, of course. That’s why the EU won’t let you cherry-pick. 

23 minutes ago, CG1 Blue said:

Tell me which other countries are in the UK's position, i.e. huge net contributor, huge trade deficit, top 5/6 economy, G7 member, major security partner etc. etc., and therefore could demand a deal to match the UK's deal upon leaving the EU?

Everyone can demand a deal. But you won’t get one that makes the club membership less attractive. 

12 minutes ago, CG1 Blue said:

Best for the club would be an orderly exit and continued good relations with the UK.

Not if it breaks up the single market and four freedoms and offer a non-member better terms than a member. Obviously. 

12 minutes ago, CG1 Blue said:

I don't recall saying a no deal would hurt.

You used the term “punish”. That implies a no deal would hurt. 

1 hour ago, CG1 Blue said:

So you're in the 'punish them' camp, rather than trying to work out a deal that benefits all parties.

So you’re admitting a no-deal would hurt? At least you learned something in the last two years, even though you still don’t get that no one cares about you getting hurt or not, it’s just about what’s best for the club.