• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Well, only one more penstroke to go before dictatorship...

Republic_Of_Public

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2009
Messages
2,922
Reaction score
343
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
All that culture, all that political independence, all that sovereignty, all that free will, all will soon be gone: Polish president ratifies EU treaty - , - Latest news & weather forecasts - MSN News UK

Just one more traitorous European president betraying his people before we become a-national serfs.

Eurowankers claim that 'Well that's Democracy, Public. The elected politicians signed our national death warrants on our behalf, rulers in their positions only because we voted'. We're told to just lump it, but we were never directly asked to become part of what can only be described as the EUSSR, nor were any politicians campaigning on the ticket of enslaving their country.
 
Last edited:

kaya'08

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 25, 2008
Messages
6,363
Reaction score
1,318
Location
British Turk
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
All that culture, all that political independence, all that sovereignty, all that free will, all will soon be gone: Polish president ratifies EU treaty - , - Latest news & weather forecasts - MSN News UK

Just one more traitorous European president betraying his people before we become a-national serfs.

Eurowankers claim that 'Well that's Democracy, Public. The elected politicians signed our national death warrants on our behalf, rulers in their positions only because we voted'. We're told to just lump it, but we were never directly asked to become part of what can only be described as the EUSSR, nor were any politicians campaigning on the ticket of enslaving their country.
The EU is a cultural failure, and above all a democratic failure. Its an anti-citizen, anti-soviergn, anti-independance union, aimed at harnessing the power of European nations and controlling it, and using bills that are pushed through parliament endlessly even when the people say no to gain more control everyday until the boarders of our nation are part of a bigger European state without us even noticing.

Hopefully the Czech's will delay this long enough for Cameron to come into power and hopefully, though most unlikely, keep his promise of putting the treaty to popular vote.
 

jackalope

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 16, 2009
Messages
6,494
Reaction score
1,328
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Liberal
Hopefully the Czech's will delay this long enough for Cameron to come into power and hopefully, though most unlikely, keep his promise of putting the treaty to popular vote.

Why was the UK not given the right to vote, but other countries were?
 

kaya'08

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 25, 2008
Messages
6,363
Reaction score
1,318
Location
British Turk
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Why was the UK not given the right to vote, but other countries were?
They where not.

The Lisbon treaty was called the Lisbon contitution but renamed again because the majority of European nations have to put the ratification of a constitution to popular vote because of their own constitutional laws.

It was renamed the Lisbon treaty so those bastards could get the law passed without governments having to put it to popular vote and trash the EU's hopes of transferring more power to Brussels. But the Irish constitution clearly states;

"any treaty that infringes national sovereignty must be put to a referendum".

Any other European nation who had to put the treaty to popular vote did so because of constitutional redtape, or their leader had an ounce of decency in him/her. Unfortunately, in Britain, our constitution does not state treaties that infringe on national soverign must be put to popular vote. And Brown is known for his indecency and is inconvienent leadership.
 
Last edited:

jackalope

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 16, 2009
Messages
6,494
Reaction score
1,328
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Liberal
They where not.

The Lisbon treaty was called the Lisbon contitution but renamed again because the majority of European nations have to put the ratification of a constitution to popular vote because of their own constitutional laws.

It was renamed the Lisbon treaty so those bastards could get the law passed without governments having to put it to popular vote and trash the EU's hopes of transferring more power to Brussels. But the Irish constitution clearly states;

"any treaty that infringes national sovereignty must be put to a referendum".

Any other European nation who had to put the treaty to popular vote did so because of constitutional redtape, or their leader had an ounce of decency in him/her. Unfortunately, in Britain, our constitution does not state treaties that infringe on national soverign must be put to popular vote. And Brown is known for his indecency and is inconvienent leadership.

So, most of the countries didn't vote? I knew about the Irish, cuz they re-jected it and had to have a re-vote, but I haven't heard too much else about it.
 

kaya'08

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 25, 2008
Messages
6,363
Reaction score
1,318
Location
British Turk
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
So, most of the countries didn't vote? I knew about the Irish, cuz they re-jected it and had to have a re-vote, but I haven't heard too much else about it.
If im not mistaken i think most countries voted for the Lisbon constitution and Ireland said no along with France, so it was modified a bit, for example making it a "treaty", so France and co. wouldnt be forced to put it to popular vote and risk the chance of getting it blocked again, all except Ireland. So the EU got a bit panicky this year with the Irish but it managed to pass, suprisingly enough.
 
Joined
Oct 11, 2009
Messages
80
Reaction score
29
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
This is a good day for europe! Just one penstroke, and a dream becomes true. :)

 

PeteEU

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
35,221
Reaction score
12,099
Location
Denmark
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
If im not mistaken i think most countries voted for the Lisbon constitution and Ireland said no along with France, so it was modified a bit, for example making it a "treaty", so France and co. wouldnt be forced to put it to popular vote and risk the chance of getting it blocked again, all except Ireland. So the EU got a bit panicky this year with the Irish but it managed to pass, suprisingly enough.
You are mistaken. Only the Irish had a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. Not even the Czechs or Poles had referendums.. kinda funny considering it is those 2 governments that have been the most vocal. If they wanted to kill it, then hold a referendum right?..
 

kaya'08

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 25, 2008
Messages
6,363
Reaction score
1,318
Location
British Turk
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
You are mistaken. Only the Irish had a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.
I was talking about the constitution when the French said no.

Not even the Czechs or Poles had referendums.. kinda funny considering it is those 2 governments that have been the most vocal. If they wanted to kill it, then hold a referendum right?..
No. You are better off delaying it rather than putting it to the people to decide, if your anti-EU then you realize it could well pass if you did hold a referendum. The Czechs government is the most vocal though it could still recieve enough yes's to pass, regardless, putting it to a referendum is running a risk. So it makes sense the Czech government is delaying it, probably to see if the English will actually hold a referendum and screw Brussels over further, though its more likely that rather then wait for Cameron to come to power the Czech government will compromise with the Lisbon treaty (that would involve denying key chapters of the treaty). This is what they claim to want anyway. Whether its just a ploy to delay or not, or if they are actually willing to pass Lisbon but under certain conditions, is yet unclear.
 

Republic_Of_Public

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2009
Messages
2,922
Reaction score
343
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
This is a good day for europe! Just one penstroke, and a dream becomes true. :)


Berk. :(

What kind of hideous dislike of free nation states powers a thought like that?

(Or perhaps Private Hudson is horsing around with such a lunatic comment, knowing that it's a sensitive one amongst we freedom-lovers.)
 
Last edited:

PeteEU

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
35,221
Reaction score
12,099
Location
Denmark
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
I was talking about the constitution when the French said no.
Okay but lets be clear that is not the Lisbon Treaty. There are considerable key differences. So key differences that most countries did not have to do a referendum because there were no big legal changes in the Lisbon Treaty vs the Constitution.

But yes, most nations had or had planed referendums for the EU constitution due to it being a whole new document/treaty that required it. The Lisbon Treaty is in principle nothing but amendments to the present treaty, amendments that were needed since the EU had expanded.

No. You are better off delaying it rather than putting it to the people to decide, if your anti-EU then you realize it could well pass if you did hold a referendum. The Czechs government is the most vocal though it could still recieve enough yes's to pass, regardless, putting it to a referendum is running a risk. So it makes sense the Czech government is delaying it, probably to see if the English will actually hold a referendum and screw Brussels over further, though its more likely that rather then wait for Cameron to come to power the Czech government will compromise with the Lisbon treaty (that would involve denying key chapters of the treaty). This is what they claim to want anyway. Whether its just a ploy to delay or not, or if they are actually willing to pass Lisbon but under certain conditions, is yet unclear.
LOL so on one hand you are pissed the Brits did not get a referendum but you are okay that the Czechs and Poles did not either because there was a large chance of it passing there? So you are fine with a single man holding up the whole thing (was 2 men)? Talk about having anti-democratic attitudes :)
 

kaya'08

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 25, 2008
Messages
6,363
Reaction score
1,318
Location
British Turk
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Okay but lets be clear that is not the Lisbon Treaty. There are considerable key differences. So key differences that most countries did not have to do a referendum because there were no big legal changes in the Lisbon Treaty vs the Constitution.
The differences have been stated already by me:

The EU constitution needs to be ratified by EU members who have such constitutional requirements, which involves the majority of EU states, a treaty does not, unless the constitution, in this case Irelands constitution, says otherwise. Its why the elitists fiddled about with the constitution and made it a "treaty", so EU nations wouldnt have to put the treaty to popular vote because they know its going to get rejected somewhere down the line. Its clever, elitist tactics.

Did the constitution want more power for Brussels? Yes.
Does the treaty want more power for Brussels? Yes.

For as long as that rings true, nothing you can do to the treaty will significantly distance itself from what the consitution was. If it hands more soverign over to Brussels, we dont give a shit how much more different you claim it to be.

But yes, most nations had or had planed referendums for the EU constitution due to it being a whole new document/treaty that required it. The Lisbon Treaty is in principle nothing but amendments to the present treaty, amendments that were needed since the EU had expanded.
No thats not why. Most countries planned a referendum because their constitution demanded of it. What the EU needs is a more efficient budget and less expansion, especially into countries who politically are quiet divided with other members or with nations who have a large anti-EU crowd. Then united decision making becomes tougher, and the need for more power in Brussels becomes more so. Less insitutions and less say for member states is not the way to go.



LOL so on one hand you are pissed the Brits did not get a referendum but you are okay that the Czechs and Poles did not either because there was a large chance of it passing there? So you are fine with a single man holding up the whole thing (was 2 men)? Talk about having anti-democratic attitudes :)
Did i say i was fine with that? At the end of the day, i dont believe its right that a group of indivisuals should have the chance to make a nation changing decision without the say of the people who make the state and who will live in the state, and who's children will go on to live in it. If it gets accepted by a popular vote then fine its what the people want - im not going to hurl myself at that country and say its counter to their interests to have the soveirgn sucked out of them. But for countries who DONT want it and DONT get the chance to vote on it, i think its just morally wrong and well, democratically disgusting. Thanks to the EU. Which is supposed to bring us more "democracy". Its ideology is based completely on power and market expansion. The people who make Europe come somewhere last on the list of EU priorities.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Oct 11, 2009
Messages
80
Reaction score
29
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Or perhaps Private Hudson is horsing around with such a lunatic comment, knowing that it's a sensitive one amongst we freedom-lovers.
I'm a "freedom-lover, too. :)

More than 50 years european integration, more than 50 years of freedom!

Berk. :(

What kind of hideous dislike of free nation states powers a thought like that?
Oh boy. The lisbon treaty is not the end of national sovereignty! Every nation can quit the membership in the european union. Read this damn treaty. The new Article 50 Treaty on European Union will for the first time set out a procedure whereby a member-state can withdraw from the EU of its own decision.


The Lisbon Treaty for dummies

The Lisbon Treaty for dummies - Your EU, Special Features - Independent.ie
 

Republic_Of_Public

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2009
Messages
2,922
Reaction score
343
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Last edited:

kaya'08

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 25, 2008
Messages
6,363
Reaction score
1,318
Location
British Turk
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
I'm a "freedom-lover, too. :)

More than 50 years european integration, more than 50 years of freedom!
How are you any more free, as an indivisual? Or are you referring to the "gaurentee of freedom" by the ECHR, the most biased insitution on the planet.
 

Republic_Of_Public

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2009
Messages
2,922
Reaction score
343
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
How are you any more free, as an indivisual? Or are you referring to the "gaurentee of freedom" by the ECHR, the most biased insitution on the planet.

The Communists called their regimes free too. Peoples' Republic is a favourite old term.
 
Joined
Oct 11, 2009
Messages
80
Reaction score
29
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
How are you any more free, as an indivisual? Or are you referring to the "gaurentee of freedom" by the ECHR, the most biased insitution on the planet.
The charter’s preamble states that its purpose is to create a closer union among the peoples of Europe and to share a peaceful future based on common values. The European Union, the preamble continues, is founded on the indivisible, universal values of human dignity, freedom, equality, and solidarity; it is based on the principles of democracy and the rule of law. It places the individual at the heart of its activities, by establishing the citizenship of the Union and creating an area of freedom, security, and justice.

Schengen Agreement

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schengen_Agreement]Schengen Agreement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

:)
 

Republic_Of_Public

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2009
Messages
2,922
Reaction score
343
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Interestingly, though, communist parties are against the EU C*nstitution too, on the grounds that it's a centralist, dictatorial and power-hungry institution working against democracy!

But others, like the Welsh communists, see the EU as a big business vehicle for exploiting the people: Communist Party, Wales.

It's both.
 

Republic_Of_Public

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2009
Messages
2,922
Reaction score
343
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The charter’s preamble states that its purpose is to create a closer union among the peoples of Europe and to share a peaceful future based on common values. The European Union, the preamble continues, is founded on the indivisible, universal values of human dignity, freedom, equality, and solidarity; it is based on the principles of democracy and the rule of law. It places the individual at the heart of its activities, by establishing the citizenship of the Union and creating an area of freedom, security, and justice.

And you believe those liars? All it's been a closer union of is of the Establishments of these nations.

And these are hardly the same as being representative of the people.

The Emerging European Soviet: The European Union-Adding New Members and Completing a Constitution-Threatens the Freedom of Europe and Foreshadows Similar Processes under Way with the FTAA
 

PeteEU

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
35,221
Reaction score
12,099
Location
Denmark
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
The differences have been stated already by me:

The EU constitution needs to be ratified by EU members who have such constitutional requirements, which involves the majority of EU states, a treaty does not, unless the constitution, in this case Irelands constitution, says otherwise. Its why the elitists fiddled about with the constitution and made it a "treaty", so EU nations wouldnt have to put the treaty to popular vote because they know its going to get rejected somewhere down the line. Its clever, elitist tactics.
Wrong on so many levels. The constitution was a whole new document and that was the point. They took the old EU treaty ripped it up and started over. Hence all countries needed to ratify via a referendum since they were entering into a new union under a new treaty.

The Treaty is nothing more than house keeping really. Gone are the aspects of Federalism that I was against in the Constitution, gone are things like having a flag (silly thing to kick out but hey) and gone is a whole new text. Instead we have amendments that accept the realities of the EU today, that we have more members than when the old treaty was written. On top of that, they have added things like human rights and what not, something you had to live up to any ways to join the block in the first place. The biggest change is the role of "President", but that is also an administrative change and in no way a monumental change in the relationship between countries and the EU. The role of "President" existed in the old treaty also.

Did the constitution want more power for Brussels? Yes.
Does the treaty want more power for Brussels? Yes.
Where exactly does the treaty, not the constitution give "more power to Brussels"? You keep saying so without proving it.

For as long as that rings true, nothing you can do to the treaty will significantly distance itself from what the consitution was. If it hands more soverign over to Brussels, we dont give a shit how much more different you claim it to be.
Again, where... prove it.

No thats not why. Most countries planned a referendum because their constitution demanded of it.
Yes it is why. The constitution was a whole new document, hence a referendum was needed in most countries.

What the EU needs is a more efficient budget
Which is exactly what the Lisbon treaty is doing.. cutting red tape.

and less expansion, especially into countries who politically are quiet divided with other members or with nations who have a large anti-EU crowd.
Hey I agree some what, Romania and Bulgaria were not ready in my opinion. But I am guessing you are complaining more about the Poles..

Then united decision making becomes tougher, and the need for more power in Brussels becomes more so. Less insitutions and less say for member states is not the way to go.
You do know that the EU parliament gets MORE power in the Lisbon treaty right? People YOU elect get more power to represent you.. and you are complaining over "less say"?

As for the "united decision" making.. yes it does become tougher with more members, I agree. Hence on non critical issues it is not needed any more. But on all the big critical calls, a united decision is needed of course as it should be.

Did i say i was fine with that? At the end of the day, i dont believe its right that a group of indivisuals should have the chance to make a nation changing decision without the say of the people who make the state and who will live in the state, and who's children will go on to live in it. If it gets accepted by a popular vote then fine its what the people want - im not going to hurl myself at that country and say its counter to their interests to have the soveirgn sucked out of them. But for countries who DONT want it and DONT get the chance to vote on it, i think its just morally wrong and well, democratically disgusting. Thanks to the EU. Which is supposed to bring us more "democracy". Its ideology is based completely on power and market expansion. The people who make Europe come somewhere last on the list of EU priorities.
You did at least indirectly.

The Czechs government is the most vocal though it could still recieve enough yes's to pass, regardless, putting it to a referendum is running a risk. So it makes sense the Czech government is delaying it,
In context of what you wrote, those lines can only be seen as a support for the Czech government in NOT holding a referendum because it might pass and agreeing with the tactics they used and are using to block the treaty. But if I am wrong then I apolgize, but that is what it sounded to me.
 
Joined
Oct 11, 2009
Messages
80
Reaction score
29
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The European Union (EU) is an economic and political union of 27 member states, located primarily in Europe. Committed to regional integration, the EU was established by the Treaty of Maastricht on 1 November 1993 upon the foundations of the pre-existing European Economic Community. With almost 500 million citizens, the EU combined generates an estimated 30% share (US$18.4 trillion in 2008) of the nominal gross world product.

The EU has developed a single market through a standardised system of laws which apply in all member states, ensuring the freedom of movement of people, goods, services, and capital.

Doesn't sound like Communism to me. :mrgreen:
 

Republic_Of_Public

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2009
Messages
2,922
Reaction score
343
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
It does when it suppresses free public will and doesn't allow us our say if we disagree with the new status quo.

It's just 'get what you're given'. Pretty soon it will be illegal for pan-European political parties to even run on an anti-EU ticket. And the other national parties with no European Parliament members will be abolished.

And you'll even be denied permission for mere protest marches by the Brussels authorities if they don't agree with you too.
 
Last edited:

kaya'08

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 25, 2008
Messages
6,363
Reaction score
1,318
Location
British Turk
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Wrong on so many levels. The constitution was a whole new document and that was the point. They took the old EU treaty ripped it up and started over. Hence all countries needed to ratify via a referendum since they were entering into a new union under a new treaty.

The Treaty is nothing more than house keeping really.
The Lisbon treaty is slimlining decision making and cutting out voices so it can have a quicker decision making mechanism. Call that house keeping, or what you want. Its basically what the constitution wanted to achieve. Its the same story with a different cover.

These are literally the only differences between Lisbon and the Constitution i could find:

* The planned 'Union Minister for Foreign Affairs' has been renamed 'High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy'.
* EU symbols like the flag, the motto and the anthem, are not made legally binding in the Treaty of Lisbon. All of them are however already in use; e.g. the flag was adopted in the 1980s. Sixteen EU-countries have declared their allegiance to these symbols in the new treaty, although the annexed declaration is not legally binding.[159][160]
* In line with eliminating all 'state-like' terminology and symbols, new names for various types of EU legislation have been dropped, in particular the proposal to rename EU regulations and EU directives as EU 'laws'.[9][136][137][161]
* Three EU Member States have negotiated additional opt-outs from certain areas of policy, particularly the UK (see above).
* Due to Poland's pressure during the June Council in 2007, the new voting system will not enter into force before 2014.
* Combating climate-change is explicitly stated as an objective of EU institutions in the Treaty of Lisbon.
* The EU Constitution would have laid down as an objective of the EU the encouraging of "free and undistorted competition". Due to pressure from the French government, this phrase was not included in the Lisbon Treaty. Instead, the text relating to free and undistorted competition in Article 3 of the EC Treaty is kept and moved to Protocol 6 ("On the Internal Market and Competition"). There has been some debate over whether this will have an impact on EU Competition policy in future. Whilst French President Nicolas Sarkozy declared "We have obtained a major reorientation of the union's objectives",[162] EU commissioner Neelie Kroes has refuted such claims, stating "putting it in a Protocol on the internal market clarifies that one cannot exist without the other. They have moved the furniture round, but the house is still there. The Protocol is of equivalent status to the Treaty."[163]

And these hardly make a difference to the treaty to the extent you exagerate it to be.


Gone are the aspects of Federalism that I was against in the Constitution, gone are things like having a flag (silly thing to kick out but hey) and gone is a whole new text.
The EU mechanism inevitable has to federate members to a certain extent through integration and increased soverign in Brussels. Though the term "federated" as we know it cannot yet be quiet defined as the EU, its certainly heading in that direction, and the Lisbon treaty is evidence of this. Regardless if the EU is headed for a Greater European state or not, the ever decreasing soverign of member states is still enough to cause concern.

Instead we have amendments that accept the realities of the EU today, that we have more members than when the old treaty was written. On top of that, they have added things like human rights and what not, something you had to live up to any ways to join the block in the first place.
Im not going to say that the human rights elements of Lisbon is bad. Quiet the opposite. Infact its quiet a promotion of our indivisual rights. Its the general purpose of the treaty i disagree with.

The biggest change is the role of "President", but that is also an administrative change and in no way a monumental change in the relationship between countries and the EU. The role of "President" existed in the old treaty also.
It was not quiet the same. The "President" as defined in Lisbon is far less temporary and is far more vocal and has more power in his hands...and you say Lisbon makes the EU less federal which is what you are against...a President under a governmental body that represents multiple nations sounds very familiar and federal to me (USSR, US come to mind?).



Where exactly does the treaty, not the constitution give "more power to Brussels"? You keep saying so without proving it.
It gives more power to Brussels because a Representative of Foriegn Affairs is established with the aim to create a united EU foriegn policy in what is supposed to be a market treaty....why does a market treaty need a united foriegn policy and a President? And Europe is so politically divided a Representative of Foriegn affairs amuses me more than the thought of Syria coming to Israel's aid during a natural disaster. A President is also established which provides more central control over EU member states


Again, where... prove it.
Have.

Yes it is why. The constitution was a whole new document, hence a referendum was needed in most countries.
What are you getting at? Your the one denying that the Lisbon treaty is the trojan horse successor of the constitution which pretty much aims to do the same thing.


Which is exactly what the Lisbon treaty is doing.. cutting red tape.
Im glad. But they are doing it differently and this has nothing to do with my point that expansion needs to come to a halt and the exclusion of countries with large anti-EU crowds and largerly divided political views which leads to EU deadlocks in decision making.

I do like the fact however that debated by the Commission of the European Union will be televised.


Hey I agree some what, Romania and Bulgaria were not ready in my opinion. But I am guessing you are complaining more about the Poles..
No mate, the Czech's, the UK who will probably end up holding a referendum and rejecting it, and inevitably Turkey in the future.

You do know that the EU parliament gets MORE power in the Lisbon treaty right? People YOU elect get more power to represent you.. and you are complaining over "less say"?
How so?

You did at least indirectly.
No i didnt! Im sorry i gave that impression.
 
Joined
Oct 11, 2009
Messages
80
Reaction score
29
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
This is pretty funny! The "Thank you" Connection. :mrgreen:

Republic_Of_Public says Thank You to kaya'08

and

kaya'08 says Thank You to Republic_Of_Public

And you'll even be denied permission for mere protest marches by the Brussels authorities if they don't agree with you too.
Yeah! You forgot punishment, if you don't agree with Brussels authorities.

http://www.motifake.com/image/demot...spanking-demotivational-poster-1242876918.jpg

Spank it... :lol:
 

kaya'08

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 25, 2008
Messages
6,363
Reaction score
1,318
Location
British Turk
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
This is pretty funny! The "Thank you" Connection. :mrgreen:

Republic_Of_Public says Thank You to kaya'08

and

kaya'08 says Thank You to Republic_Of_Public
God forbid i should thank somebody i agree with. Dun-dun-DUH!!
 
Top Bottom