George Soros donated money to campaign for a rerun of Britain's EU referendum

[Khun Han]

4 minutes ago, tomacht8 said:

Do not worry. Junkers term ends October 2019. The European Commission is the politically independent executive of the EU. It is solely responsible for drawing up proposals for new European legislation and implementing the decisions of the European Parliament and the Council of the EU. 

One of the first tasks of the newly elected parliament is to elect the new president of the European Commission (the executive branch of the EU). When proposing a candidate, Member States must take into account the results of the European elections. The European Parliament will then vote on the proposed candidate, which will require a qualified majority, with at least half of all MEPs (at least 376 of the 751 members) voting in favor of being elected. When Parliament has given its assent to the President and Members of the Commission, they will be appointed by the Council, acting by a qualified majority.

 

It is always amazing how often it is tried to suggest that the members of the EU are not elected.

 

 

 

It's just that, in a democracy, the electorate know who all their potential leaders are (you know? the people who are going to make all the big decisions on their behalf?) when they cast their vote: they know who they are voting for and against. With the EU, the electorate doesn't have any say in, or the faintest idea of who the people are who are going to end up as their leaders.

[tomacht8]

2 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

 

It's just that, in a democracy, the electorate know who all their potential leaders are (you know? the people who are going to make all the big decisions on their behalf?) when they cast their vote: they know who they are voting for and against. With the EU, the electorate doesn't have any say in, or the faintest idea of who the people are who are going to end up as their leaders.

I understand your objection. But in 28 states, a majority-based direct-election system of individual persons is technically not feasible at all. 

In the election to the EU parliament, you choose your favorite from your country. Then your elected representatives from your country will continue to vote in the EU Parliament.

[Khun Han]

1 minute ago, tomacht8 said:

I understand your objection. But in 28 states, a majority-based direct-election system of individual persons is technically not feasible at all. 

In the election to the EU parliament, you choose your favorite from your country. Then your elected representatives from your country will continue to vote in the EU Parliament.

 

I don't know about the rest of the 27 states, but the European Parliament elections in the UK get the worst percentage turnouts of any election process, and by a country mile. Hardly anybody cares, because they don't know what they're actually voting for. And, the few who do vote, vote mostly along the same party political lines that they would in any other election. Condemnation of the EU as a democracy doesn't get any more complete than this.

[F4UCorsair]

2 hours ago, Bluespunk said:

It’s his money.

 

If he wants to donate to groups exercising their democratic rights, then fair enough. 

 

Groups attempting to circumvent the democratic process??

 

There was a legitimate vote, and it was in favor of leaving the EU.   The left didn't like it, so campaigned for another vote, and if gave the same result, they'd be doing the same thing again.   Where does it end?    I know.....when the finally get what they want.   It's not going to happen in this case.

Edited February 9, 2018 by F4UCorsair

[stevenl]

2 hours ago, Khun Han said:

 

Nope. It's a completely valid point. And one which you are not squirming out of.

The difference is openly donating, and taking secret actions.

The donations were done openly to a democratic group, the Russian actions were secret.

[Grouse]

2 hours ago, F4UCorsair said:

 

Groups attempting to circumvent the democratic process??

 

There was a legitimate vote, and it was in favor of leaving the EU.   The left didn't like it, so campaigned for another vote, and if gave the same result, they'd be doing the same thing again.   Where does it end?    I know.....when the finally get what they want.   It's not going to happen in this case.

The left? The Corbynistas? I don't think so.

 

I is the bright wing that is anti Brexit ?

[Bluespunk]

5 hours ago, Khun Han said:

 

Nope. It's a completely valid point. And one which you are not squirming out of.

No it’s not and no ones squirming. Well, I’m not anyway. 

[Bluespunk]

4 hours ago, F4UCorsair said:

 

Groups attempting to circumvent the democratic process??

 

There was a legitimate vote, and it was in favor of leaving the EU.   The left didn't like it, so campaigned for another vote, and if gave the same result, they'd be doing the same thing again.   Where does it end?    I know.....when the finally get what they want.   It's not going to happen in this case.

Calling for another vote is not circumventing the democratic process. It’s exercising your rights under it. 

 

 

[F4UCorsair]

1 hour ago, Bluespunk said:

Calling for another vote is not circumventing the democratic process. It’s exercising your rights under it. 

 

 

AND not accepting the democratic process!!

[Bluespunk]

5 minutes ago, F4UCorsair said:

AND not accepting the democratic process!!

No.

 

They are exercising their democratic rights to campaign against a decision they disagree with. 

 

They are campaigning openly and within the democratic framework. 

 

There is nothing illegal, undemocratic or subversive about their actions. 

Edited February 10, 2018 by Bluespunk

[Khun Han]

4 hours ago, Bluespunk said:

No it’s not and no ones squirming. Well, I’m not anyway. 

 

So, one foreign entity (allegedly) trying to influence our politics in favour of brexit is unacceptable, but another foreign entity doing the same in favour of remain is fine, and just someone spending their money how they're entitled to, is it?

[Jingthing]

As long as it doesn't break U.K. law I think donating money to do a rerun Brexit vote is a worthy cause, whether the donation is from Soros or whoever. 

 

Personally, I think a redo would result in a remainer victory, but if that happened, I suppose a call for two out of three would be expected.

 

I do understand Soros is demonized by many from the left and right. Some of the reasons to oppose Soros are sincere, while others are motivated by antisemitism. 

Edited February 10, 2018 by Jingthing

[Bluespunk]

4 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

 

So, one foreign entity (allegedly) trying to influence our politics in favour of brexit is unacceptable, but another foreign entity doing the same in favour of remain is fine, and just someone spending their money how they're entitled to, is it?

George Soros has openly made a donation to a campaign he supports. 

 

The russian interference in the USA presidential election was a secretive campaign composed of false allegations, false news and disinformation. 

 

Allegedly. 

[Khun Han]

7 hours ago, stevenl said:

The difference is openly donating, and taking secret actions.

The donations were done openly to a democratic group, the Russian actions were secret.

 

Would you be so kind as to provide some evidence of these secret Russian actions? Conspiracy theories aren't proof, by the way.

 

And, if you can't understand that a foreign entity with it's own agenda trying to influence the politics of a sovereign country is wrong on all levels (whether done secretly or not), is wrong on all levels, then there is no hope for you.

[Khun Han]

Anyone who thinks that a foreign entity trying to influence a sovereign country's politics is acceptable in any circumstances, is headed down a very slippery slope.

[nisakiman]

On 2/8/2018 at 7:41 AM, simoh1490 said:

There there dear, calm down!

 

There's nothing secretive about the Bilderberg Group, its presence and its objectives are widely understood, even wiki. has a page on it for goodness sake, perhaps if you were to read it you'd stop having these hallucinations about people trying to take over the world:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilderberg_Group

"The group's original goal of promoting Atlanticism, of strengthening U.S.–European relations and preventing another world war has grown; the Bilderberg Group's theme is to "bolster a consensus around free market Western capitalism and its interests around the globe"

 

 

 

You really are quite remarkably naive.

 

 

[simoh1490]

2 minutes ago, nisakiman said:

 

You really are quite remarkably naive.

 

 

Well I wouldn't suggest that posting cartoons of talking sheep is actually the height of brilliance either!

[Khun Han]

Brilliant cartoon Nisakiman .

[Jingthing]

Sheeple schmeeple ... where's the darned mint sauce?

Sent from my [device_name] using http://Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[Morch]

4 hours ago, Khun Han said:

Anyone who thinks that a foreign entity trying to influence a sovereign country's politics is acceptable in any circumstances, is headed down a very slippery slope.

 

Do the country's laws prescribe Soros's actions as "unacceptable in any circumstances"?

[Khun Han]

33 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Do the country's laws prescribe Soros's actions as "unacceptable in any circumstances"?

 

Oh, the fact that it's technically not illegal makes it absolutely fine then. And if it's ok for Soros to interfere in brexit, it's ok for any foreign entity to interfere in any aspect of British politics.

[Morch]

15 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

 

Oh, the fact that it's technically not illegal makes it absolutely fine then. And if it's ok for Soros to interfere in brexit, it's ok for any foreign entity to interfere in any aspect of British politics.

 

Nothing said about it being fine or otherwise. You posit that it is unacceptable, the law says something else - thus it is a relegated to "technicality".  I don't think the law actually draws the inane equivalence suggested, but that it is more nuanced than that.

[Khun Han]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

Nothing said about it being fine or otherwise. You posit that it is unacceptable, the law says something else - thus it is a relegated to "technicality".  I don't think the law actually draws the inane equivalence suggested, but that it is more nuanced than that.

You can prattle on about law and nuance all you want. I never claimed it was illegal. But it is totally unacceptable, and if you can't understand why, that's your problem.

 

Here is an article on 'dark' funding of political campaigns, which, because it is in the Grauniad, concentrates mainly on funding of the leave the EU campaign:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/apr/01/dark-money-threat-to-uk-elections-integrity

 

Remainer-types lap this stuff up when it's in this format, whilst supporting funding for their cause from a foreign agitator such as Soros. And they will split the finest of hairs to argue that their funding is ok whilst their opponents' funding is not. Of course, the meme of the linked article is that these dodgy political sponsors have left the law standing, and the law needs to catch up.

[Morch]

31 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

You can prattle on about law and nuance all you want. I never claimed it was illegal. But it is totally unacceptable, and if you can't understand why, that's your problem.

 

Here is an article on 'dark' funding of political campaigns, which, because it is in the Grauniad, concentrates mainly on funding of the leave the EU campaign:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/apr/01/dark-money-threat-to-uk-elections-integrity

 

Remainer-types lap this stuff up when it's in this format, whilst supporting funding for their cause from a foreign agitator such as Soros. And they will split the finest of hairs to argue that their funding is ok whilst their opponents' funding is not. Of course, the meme of the linked article is that these dodgy political sponsors have left the law standing, and the law needs to catch up.

 

That you decree it "unacceptable" does not make it so, and does not make your opinion a generally accepted point of view. If it was anywhere near as "unacceptable" as proclaimed, there would be clear laws pertaining to the matter.

[isaanbanhou]

1 minute ago, Morch said:

 

That you decree it "unacceptable" does not make it so, and does not make your opinion a generally accepted point of view. If it was anywhere near as "unacceptable" as proclaimed, there would be clear laws pertaining to the matter.

And because you like to go through life being herded by someone from another country who doesn t have your best interest at heart doesn t mean everyone else does.   

[Morch]

Just now, isaanbanhou said:

And because you like to go through life being herded by someone from another country who doesn t have your best interest at heart doesn t mean everyone else does.   

 

Oh, look - it's a poster making a lame personal comment with the relevancy rating of zero. Try reading my posts on this topic again - there was no direct support offered for Soros's actions or their merit, just objecting to them described in the manner above.

[greatwhitenorth]

So you don t support him, you just support his right to interfere in other countries future.  Yaa right

[Morch]

Just now, greatwhitenorth said:

So you don t support him, you just support his right to interfere in other countries future.  Yaa right

 

I support posters' right to improved reading comprehension. Try again.

[greatwhitenorth]

Just now, Morch said:

 

I support posters' right to improved reading comprehension. Try again.

then your posting on the wrong thread.  Typical nonsense , now he is grammar police and reading coach.

[Khun Han]

50 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

I support posters' right to improved reading comprehension. Try again.

 

Reading comprehension requires the relevant posts to be comprehensible. Other than flagging up the fact that laws have fallen behind on this issue, you aren't actually saying anything.