5 hours ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

Yes, a majority of 383 voted for her. 

How many voted for the UK’s head of state? Oh, wait...

 

If there was a vote for the British head of state, she would surely receive 85%. Now please tell us from which country you come from,then we can compare with your head of state.

32 minutes ago, petemoss said:

Nothing for the Commons either. Purely down to Tory party members. I think that he needs Royal assent to become Prime Minister but usually a formality.

For THIS time.. as the Tories + DUP hold a fast and overwhelming majority ( ?)  of... 312+10 seats of the 650...   https://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/mps/current-state-of-the-parties/   and  https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-47787898  

5 hours ago, Thingamabob said:

What a farce.

Yes, and that’s before taking into account her term as the German Defence  Minister, when she was involved in some very shady corrupt deals. Allthough to think about it, that should make her a perfect fit in for the Top E.U. Job.

Just now, puipuitom said:

For THIS time.. as the Tories + DUP hold a fast and overwhelming majority ( ?)  of... 312+10 seats of the 650...   https://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/mps/current-state-of-the-parties/   and  https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-47787898  

No. Thats the way it works. The tory party elects a leader and HM The Queen says, "Do you fancy the job of P.M. BJ?". Boris replies, "Wofffle woffle barf barf" and the job's his.

 

However, once in Parliament, MPs are entitled to call for a vote of no confidence in the Government. If they lose that vote then a general election is called. As the govenment is actually a minority and in a coalition (as you rightly point out) they are in a very precarious position if a no confidence vote were called.

 

The show's by no means over, interesting times ahead. There's a real possibility that Boris will be one of the shortest lived PMs ever.

26 minutes ago, Thairealist said:

 

 

 383 MEP voted for her, Yet Ruam Ruby complains that only 160,000 people get to vote for the next Tory leader.

Do you mean me? While it is true that I try never to miss an opportunity to pour scorn upon the Conservative Party, the relative numbers of voters was not really my point. Did it really escape you? 

4 hours ago, nauseus said:

They don't want to pay for more military.

And why should they pay for more military?

To help the USA to invade other people's countries?

Exactly against which countries along the German border do they have to protect their country?

No aggression, no enemy, no military, no problem.

13 minutes ago, Thairealist said:

 

If there was a vote for the British head of state, she would surely receive 85%. Now please tell us from which country you come from,then we can compare with your head of state.

Good that you admit your head of state is unelected. I suggest you fix that first. 

3 minutes ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

Good that you admit your head of state is unelected. I suggest you fix that first. 

 

 

 You seem to have forgotten to mention,from which country you are from.

Then we would be able to compare. Are you so ashamed?

7 minutes ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

Good that you admit your head of state is unelected. I suggest you fix that first. 

Did you shoot your countries head of state then...?

18 minutes ago, Thairealist said:

You seem to have forgotten to mention,from which country you are from.

Not forgotten. It’s simply not relevant. 

 

18 minutes ago, Thairealist said:

Then we would be able to compare.

What do you want to compare? 

 

18 minutes ago, Thairealist said:

Are you so ashamed?

Of what?

19 minutes ago, transam said:

Did you shoot your countries head of state then...?

No, I didn’t. 

3 minutes ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

No, I didn’t. 

Well I know you didn't, you ain't old enough...????

32 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

And why should they pay for more military?

To help the USA to invade other people's countries?

Exactly against which countries along the German border do they have to protect their country?

No aggression, no enemy, no military, no problem.

Because a Russian army is just a few hours drive away from the Eastern German border.

Second: seen their alliances with other nations, especially the Baltic states ( former Hanze = German) areas

4 hours ago, petemoss said:

Says who? You? Do you base this on any fact or did you dream it last night?

They have not even been keeping up with the 2% of GDP defence budget commitment, let alone maintaining the forces and equipment they are allowed to have. Common knowledge since Trump rightly complained about it at the NATO summit.  

4 hours ago, petemoss said:

Is that all you've got attack the poster not the post? I suppose we can expect no more from a blindfold Brexiteer.

The shallow (graves) comment was yours. I didn't appreciate it. 

4 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The Euro-Sceptics could have put up a candidate but why bother, complaining while not contributing is so much easier.

Wrong. The candidate is selected and agreed on by a club of established EUrophiles.

2 hours ago, puipuitom said:

Ah... because you British do not know much about the EU...

The president of the EU Commission is ONLY elected by the leaders of the EU member states. The EU parliament has only a veto right, whatever these parliament members ( remind: ONLY a Spitzenkandidat from the three leading parties)  tell before the elections ( just as Boris promised 350 million pounds per week for the NHS) 

Ah...nothing. We know too much about the EU now and everyone can see how wonderfully democratic the processes are. The only remotely democratic vote is that for the MEP's but the European Parliament has least power of all EU bodies.

1 hour ago, OneMoreFarang said:

And why should they pay for more military?

To help the USA to invade other people's countries?

Exactly against which countries along the German border do they have to protect their country?

No aggression, no enemy, no military, no problem.

No NATO then.

13 minutes ago, nauseus said:

No NATO then.

Some time ago the NATO was a good idea.

And then some counties started to create coalitions of the willing to invade other countries.

Maybe you remember the Iraq war and all the wrong reasons to start it.

We definitely don't need NATO to invade others.

And will Trump and whoever will come after him commit to NATO? 

It seems it's time to rethink lots of things which people took for granted until a few years ago.

38 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Wrong. The candidate is selected and agreed on by a club of established EUrophiles.

How surprising! Governments of member states are europhiles....

47 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Some time ago the NATO was a good idea.

And then some counties started to create coalitions of the willing to invade other countries.

Maybe you remember the Iraq war and all the wrong reasons to start it.

We definitely don't need NATO to invade others.

And will Trump and whoever will come after him commit to NATO? 

It seems it's time to rethink lots of things which people took for granted until a few years ago.

It still is a good idea. NATO was designed for common defence - not attack. Iraq was not a NATO operation.

 

The US has always been fully committed to NATO, unlike several other members, unfortunately. Yes, these members who have taken NATO for granted need to rethink for themselves and get real. This EU idea for a common defence force will be nothing compared to the NATO capability (mainly because of the Americans) and an EU force may cause the disbanding of NATO itself - a very BAD idea. 

20 minutes ago, candide said:

How surprising! Governments of member states are europhiles....

Yes most of the representative horse-traders who have a say are Europhiles. Most of the horse-trading goes on behind closed doors, of course. This woman came out of the barn overnight and started running about like a filly! It's a democratic disaster! 

5 minutes ago, nauseus said:

It still is a good idea. NATO was designed for common defence - not attack. Iraq was not a NATO operation.

 

The US has always been fully committed to NATO, unlike several other members, unfortunately. Yes, these members who have taken NATO for granted need to rethink for themselves and get real. This EU idea for a common defence force will be nothing compared to the NATO capability (mainly because of the Americans) and and EU force may cause the disbanding of NATO itself - a very BAD idea. 

What will happen with the USA in the future? 4 more years of Trump?

And let's not forget that when W. was in charge most of us thought it can't get worse. And then the Americans voted for Trump.

I really don't want to speculate who they will elect next.

 

Just that is reason enough to get independent from the USA. Whatever happens over there is more and more unpredictable.

3 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

What will happen with the USA in the future? 4 more years of Trump?

And let's not forget that when W. was in charge most of us thought it can't get worse. And then the Americans voted for Trump.

I really don't want to speculate who they will elect next.

 

Just that is reason enough to get independent from the USA. Whatever happens over there is more and more unpredictable.

Funny. That is just how I feel about the EU.

 

At least Trump only gets 8 years max. Maybe only 5 1/2 to go! 

 

I'll stick with the USA. 

6 hours ago, petemoss said:

No, the French and British have bigger and better armies than the Germans/Austrians. Does Germany have Trident missiles?

Read what I said.

1 hour ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

Not forgotten. It’s simply not relevant. 

 

What do you want to compare? 

 

Of what?

 

 

 You criticize how our head of state is appointed, so I politely ask,from which country you are from, so that we can compare. And all you can reply, is that it’s irrelevant. Me thinks that you are too ashamed to state,where you are from,yet you like to criticize the U.K. Says a great deal about you.

13 minutes ago, Thairealist said:

You criticize how our head of state is appointed,

No, I didn’t. Quite the other way round; people whose own head of state is unelected like to falsely claim that EU politicians are unelected. I am just mocking their hypocrisy. 

 

Quote

so I politely ask,from which country you are from, so that we can compare.

Again, what do you want to compare, and how is it relevant? This thread is about the appointment of Ursula von der Leyen. 

 

Quote

And all you can reply, is that it’s irrelevant. Me thinks that you are too ashamed to state,where you are from,yet you like to criticize the U.K. Says a great deal about you.

I still don’t understand how one could possibly be ashamed of the country oh his passport. It’s neither something you can be ashamed nor be proud of. Just a statistical date. Take whatever country you like; it doesn’t change that your head of state is unelected, whereas Ursula von der Leyen was elected. 

Better to have Leyen than Ska Keller, the overgreen princess who also wanted this job.

 

 Ska keller, born in the Ex DDR studied Islamic Studies, Turkology and Jewish Studies and the Free University of Berlin and the Sabanci Üniversitesi İstanbul, and completed her degree in 2010.

 

  No more bullocks, please. 

 

 

43 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

What will happen with the USA in the future? 4 more years of Trump?

And let's not forget that when W. was in charge most of us thought it can't get worse. And then the Americans voted for Trump.

I really don't want to speculate who they will elect next.

 

Just that is reason enough to get independent from the USA. Whatever happens over there is more and more unpredictable.

Most countries are already independent of the US of A. Only Trump doesn't seem to get that. 

9 hours ago, Thingamabob said:

What a farce.

yes we rather have a fair election like in Thailand