bbc got pwned
•
19 Nov 2009, 22:05
•
Journals
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VrMehBQp-1s
The British just can't deal with losing, that's why they like to shit on the winner!
european president, herman van rompuy
The British just can't deal with losing, that's why they like to shit on the winner!
european president, herman van rompuy
seg wnr gaan we ko ragen voor die cup?
Confused...
all the good from belgium
[nl]beter een belg dan die nerd van een balkenende imo[/nl]
but I can see where your coming from.. she is one of the few rather then one of the many.
A difference between black & light, literally.
And to be fair you are comparing the EU to a country which has a "Governator" and an ex-actor (Ronald Reagan) as former president.
So yes he represents the EU and so needs some 'charisma' to attract interest. If he sits next to Obama, Obama will attract 99% of the journalists and Van Rompuy 1%, quite embarassing because the EU is the bigger economy.
But - again, yes - he has the brains so yes he's not a bad candidate. All I'm saying is he misses charisma which - in such a position - is needed.
Who gives a shit who this guy is, he's not my President, anymore than Blair would've been if the Euros had been stupid enough to give him the job.
not that he has much power, EU is only a union and not a coutry.
Well, you vote for British politicians from British Political Parties and they sent representatives to 'Europe' so indirectly yes you voted for them.
How do you suggest to do it 'real democratic'? Vote for politicians from Cyprus or Poland you have never heard of before?? What would be the point of that? Because the people of each country only know their own politicians it's better to only vote for them (at least you know who and what you vote for) and they sent their politicians to 'Europe'.
And you can't complain that you have no say in it. The only thing that would be possible would be a referendum but in the UK you can't ask a referendum for every political decision either. And apart from Blair no one (of the public) knew the candidates so if the public had to chose for a candidate it would be based on its image and charisma which would be a joke (the best person wouldn't have had the job).
The issue is that no-one in the UK has ever consented to be governed by Europe, because we've never been asked.
We first need to vote for whether we want to be in Europe at all. Until that happens everything else is, and will remain, un-democratic.
in the past. I agree though that for EU entry a referendum should have been hold (dunno if u guys had one).
Well, it's something that the UK has to decide, in or out of the EU but you can't expect to have all the benefits while being out.
Maybe you guys want a free trade zone but you have to understand that other countries want to go much further than that. Countries like Belgium, Estonia, etc.. are non-existant in the world so we have no choice.
"Britain has been a member of the EU since 1973, and this membership delivers many benefits to Britain and its citizens."
so to answer your question: since 1973
But at least the new President is someone who's been elected for something. The new EU Foreign Minister is a British minister that NO-ONE has EVER voted for, for anything. So much for democracy.
We had a referendum for the European law and we said no.. still our government rejected it and agreed with it anyway.
Rather him than me tbh, so good luck to the guy.