On 10/03/2022 19:52, Java Jive wrote:
> On 10/03/2022 16:19, Indy Jess John wrote:
>> On 10/03/2022 10:32, Java Jive wrote:
>>> On 09/03/2022 23:31, Indy Jess John wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Wrt deciding which system is more democratic, it is not a significant
>>>>> amount, a fact that you continually try to mask - for the years
>>>>> between 1983 and 2019 they averaged just under 10pa, whereas government
>>>>> introduced bills for two of those years selected pseudo randomly, were
>>>>> around 7k& 10k. Further, most of the Private Member's Bills that
>>>>> succeed appear to originate in the less democratic chamber, the Lords.
>>>>> Put all this against the fact that nearly all requests to the
>>>>> Commission
>>>>> which are carried by a majority in the European Parliament will result
>>>>> in action by the Commission, and that in the UK the major political
>>>>> parties frequently apply a three line whip to ensure their own MPs vote
>>>>> as the leadership wishes, and the EU begins to look *MORE* democratic,
>>>>> not less, than our own system.
>>>>
>>>> You are entitled to your opinion, even if it is wrong.
>>>
>>> My opinion is based on facts, not bigotry.
>>>
>>>> The fact remains
>>>> that the executive function in the EU is never performed by the people
>>>> elected by the voters. The fact that the lobbyists are mostly successful
>>>> doesn't change that.
>>>
>>> The facts outlined above speak for themselves. The democratically
>>> elected MEPs have as at least as much, arguably more, influence on EU
>>> policy
>>
>> My point entirely - they are elected lobbyists not an executive body.
>>
>> Perhaps now that you have stated that yourself, you might start to think
>> it might actually be true.
>
> I never stated that they are elected lobbyists, that is your fiction and
> yours alone.

You said "The democratically elected MEPs have as at least as much,
arguably more, influence on EU policy", so they are influencers (ie
lobbyists) not an executive body. And MEPs are elected, so they are
elected lobbyists. Don't pretend you or I said anything different.

I do feel so sorry for you, being unable to understand simple logic.

Jim

On 10/03/2022 04:45 pm, Wilf wrote:

> On 10/03/2022 at 14:28, JNugent wrote:
>> On 08/03/2022 02:00 pm, Wilf wrote:
>>> On 08/03/2022 at 10:52, MB wrote:
>>>> On 08/03/2022 10:38, Wilf wrote:
>
>>>>> Ugh.  How can he be in Europe!  Except maybe to stir up trouble that's
>>>>> none of his business.
>
>>>> Do you now have to swear allegiance to the EU to visit "Europe"?
>
>>> No, but he always claimed what an awful disgusting place it was.
>
>> Are you sure he wasn't simply saying that the European Union was an
>> awful system of government?
>
> He never distinguished the EU from "Europe".

That's a silly thing to say.

Especially as it's the Provisional Remainers who fail to do that.

On 10/03/2022 07:34 pm, Java Jive wrote:
> On 10/03/2022 14:40, JNugent wrote:
>>
>> On 08/03/2022 09:52 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>>>
>>> On 08/03/2022 20:59, Robin wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The possible Huguenot origin of the name is irrelevant. It should be
>>>> obvious to the meanest intellect that a surname may be inherited
>>>> from a person who makes up a tiny fraction of his ancestry from 300
>>>> years ago.
>>>
>>> A *minimum* of 2 x great great grandparents is 2 / 2^4 which is 1/8,
>>> not a tiny fraction of his ancestry.
>>
>> Usually, only one of them would have brought the surname to the table,
>> so it's 1/16th.
>>
>> [Yes, I suppose that it's possible for two unrelated Smiths or Joneses
>> to meet and marry, though I suggest that the likelihood falls away
>> somewhat for unrelated Farages or Jives.]
>
> How typical that you come late into the argument spouting rubbish
> because you didn't bother to look up the facts, viz: that he has *two*
> German ancestors, not one.

And did BOTH of those great great grandparents have the name "Farage"
even before they married, which is what they'd need to have had to
reduce the numbers to 1/8th instead of 1/16th?

>>>> And no, I don't agree that it's OK for you to lie about someone just
>>>> because you don't like his views.
>
>>> I didn't lie, as you yourself admitted up thread.
>>
>> You're *still* using that tactic, are you?
>
> You're *still* using that tactic, are you?

Pathetic.

>>>> (Also, while I am no fan of his, like others that I recall him
>>>> slagging of EU institutions, leaders and officials but not countries
>>>> or peoples or the whole continent.)
>>>
>>> The EU is part of Europe, so in lying about the EU, he is inevitably
>>> lying about Europe as well.
>>>
>>>> But I do hate hypocrisy.
>>>
>>> Don't look in a mirror then.
>>
>> Is that the playtime bell ringing for you to get back into the classroom?
>
> No, it's for you.

Doubly pathetic.

On 10/03/2022 07:42 pm, Java Jive wrote:

> On 10/03/2022 14:32, JNugent wrote:
>> On 08/03/2022 05:12 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>
>>> Doubtless you can read Wikipedia as well as me.  His is clearly not
>>> an English name, and has been suggested to be French Huguenot in
>>> origin, but even if it's just the two great-great-grandparents, that
>>> still makes his lying about Europe somewhat hypocritical, don't you
>>> think?
>
>> What "lies" do you mean?
>
>> His position on the EU can be boiled down to: "I prefer to live in a
>> country - the United Kingdom - which is not run by or subject to
>> foreign politicians and I invite you to take the same view".
>
> Do you really, seriously think that Farage doesn't lie, and hasn't been
> doing so about the EU for decades?

[snip JJ's irrelevant rant]

Why are you so afraid of answering the question?

Farage's position on the EU can be boiled down to: "I prefer to live in
a country - the United Kingdom - which is not run by or subject to
foreign politicians and I invite you to take the same view".

There are no lies in that.

On 10/03/2022 07:45 pm, Java Jive wrote:

> On 10/03/2022 19:42, Java Jive wrote:

[ ... ]

Talking to yourself again?

On 10/03/2022 23:19, Indy Jess John wrote:
>
> You said "The democratically elected MEPs have as at least as much,
> arguably more, influence on EU policy", so they are influencers (ie
> lobbyists) not an executive body. And MEPs are elected, so they are
> elected lobbyists. Don't pretend you or I said anything different.

MEPs are not lobbyists any more than are our own MPs, that is your
fiction/untruth/lie. Your insistence on it is beginning to look like
the latter, just as with agricultural ditches and all the other things
for which you cannot accept straight facts that contradict your opinions.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 10/03/2022 23:08, williamwright wrote:
>
> On 10/03/2022 16:45, Wilf wrote:
>>
>> He never distinguished the EU from "Europe".
>
> This is simply untrue.

And how, in his latest lie that we in the West are the cause of Putin
invading Russia, do you suppose that he is not criticising the EU and
NATO and the West generally, but strangely not Europe?

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 11/03/2022 00:10, JNugent wrote:
>
> On 10/03/2022 07:34 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> How typical that you come late into the argument spouting rubbish
>> because you didn't bother to look up the facts, viz: that he has *two*
>> German ancestors, not one.
>
> And did BOTH of those great great grandparents have the name "Farage"
> even before they married, which is what they'd need to have had to
> reduce the numbers to 1/8th instead of 1/16th?

Again, you come in late upon the argument spouting bullshit. The
argument is not about what proportion of his ancestors carried the name
Farage, it's about what proportion of his ancestors came from across the
Channel.

>>> You're *still* using that tactic, are you?
>>
>> You're *still* using that tactic, are you?
>
> Pathetic.

If you think it's so pathetic, why did you start it?

>>> Is that the playtime bell ringing for you to get back into the
>>> classroom?
>>
>> No, it's for you.
>
> Doubly pathetic.

Again, if you think it's so pathetic, why did you start it?

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 11/03/2022 00:13, JNugent wrote:
>
> On 10/03/2022 07:45 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> [Some uncomfortable facts about Farage's many lies]
>
> Talking to yourself again?

I note the typical lack of a rational response.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 11/03/2022 00:13, JNugent wrote:
>
> On 10/03/2022 07:42 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> On 10/03/2022 14:32, JNugent wrote:
>>>
>>> On 08/03/2022 05:12 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Doubtless you can read Wikipedia as well as me.  His is clearly not
>>>> an English name, and has been suggested to be French Huguenot in
>>>> origin, but even if it's just the two great-great-grandparents, that
>>>> still makes his lying about Europe somewhat hypocritical, don't you
>>>> think?
>>
>>> What "lies" do you mean?
>
> [snip JJ's irrelevant rant]

I was answering the question still quoted immediately above, viz: 'What
"lies" do you mean?' by listing just a few of the many lies that Farage
has told. It's only now suddenly 'irrelevant' because otherwise you'd
have to admit to being proved wrong in argument (yet again), though why
you should have such difficulty with this is beyond anyone's
comprehension, because you've had so much chance to practice!

> There are no lies in that.

It wasn't what was being discussed, what was being discussed was
Farage's many lies.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

Oops, the fog of war ...

On 11/03/2022 00:50, Java Jive wrote:
>
> On 10/03/2022 23:08, williamwright wrote:
>>
>> On 10/03/2022 16:45, Wilf wrote:
>>>
>>> He never distinguished the EU from "Europe".
>>
>> This is simply untrue.
>
> And how, in his latest lie that we in the West are the cause of Putin
> invading

Ukraine

> do you suppose that he is not criticising the EU and
> NATO and the West generally, but strangely not Europe?
>

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 11/03/2022 00:46, Java Jive wrote:
> On 10/03/2022 23:19, Indy Jess John wrote:
>>
>> You said "The democratically elected MEPs have as at least as much,
>> arguably more, influence on EU policy", so they are influencers (ie
>> lobbyists) not an executive body. And MEPs are elected, so they are
>> elected lobbyists. Don't pretend you or I said anything different.
>
> MEPs are not lobbyists any more than are our own MPs, that is your
> fiction/untruth/lie.

Our own MPs vote on proposed legislation and when there is a majority in
favour the words "The ayes have it", that conclusion becomes law.

So it is your words "MEPs are not lobbyists any more than are our own
MPs" above and not my explanation, which is the lie.

As I said (and you trimmed) I do feel so sorry for you, being unable to
understand simple logic. It makes you obsessive.

Jim

On 10/03/2022 23:08, williamwright wrote:
> This is simply untrue.
>
> Bill

I am no fan of Farage but this is true, he always distinguishes the EU
from "Europe" and I think he has comments on how the EU (and its fans)
tend claim ownership of the whole of Europe.

On 11/03/2022 07:36, Indy Jess John wrote:
> Our own MPs vote on proposed legislation and when there is a majority in
> favour the words "The ayes have it", that conclusion becomes law.

Most legislation comes from the government but there are ways that a
humble MP can get a piece of legislation passed into law. The EU
"Parliament" seems to require legislation to come from Politburo but
like the majority of people I pay little attention to them, as I did
also when we were ruled by them.

On 11/03/2022 07:36, Indy Jess John wrote:
>
> On 11/03/2022 00:46, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> MEPs are not lobbyists any more than are our own MPs, that is your
>> fiction/untruth/lie.
>
> Our own MPs vote on proposed legislation and when there is a majority in
> favour the words "The ayes have it", that conclusion becomes law.

<Sigh!> *Exactly* as happens in the European Parliament!

> So it is your words "MEPs are not lobbyists any more than are our own
> MPs" above and not my explanation, which is the lie.

Although IMO it's not an appropriate word, logically, if MEPs are
lobbyists, so are MPs.

> As I said (and you trimmed) I do feel so sorry for you, being unable to
> understand simple logic.  It makes you obsessive.

You've been looking in a mirror again, I'm not the one denying simple
facts here.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 11/03/2022 10:41, MB wrote:
> On 11/03/2022 07:36, Indy Jess John wrote:
>> Our own MPs vote on proposed legislation and when there is a majority in
>> favour the words "The ayes have it", that conclusion becomes law.
>
> Most legislation comes from the government but there are ways that a
> humble MP can get a piece of legislation passed into law.

The number that get so passed is insignificant in practice, less than
10pa since 1983, whereas government legislation is numbers in the
highish thousands.

> The EU
> "Parliament" seems to require legislation to come from Politburo

Bigotry noted.

> but
> like the majority of people I pay little attention to them, as I did
> also when we were ruled by them.

Just as, in practice, the vast majority of our legislation is drafted by
our civil service,

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 11/03/2022 12:55 am, Java Jive wrote:
> On 11/03/2022 00:10, JNugent wrote:
>>
>> On 10/03/2022 07:34 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>>>
>>> How typical that you come late into the argument spouting rubbish
>>> because you didn't bother to look up the facts, viz: that he has
>>> *two* German ancestors, not one.
>>
>> And did BOTH of those great great grandparents have the name "Farage"
>> even before they married, which is what they'd need to have had to
>> reduce the numbers to 1/8th instead of 1/16th?
>
> Again, you come in late upon the argument spouting bullshit.  The
> argument is not about what proportion of his ancestors carried the name
> Farage, it's about what proportion of his ancestors came from across the
> Channel.
>
>>>> You're *still* using that tactic, are you?
>>>
>>> You're *still* using that tactic, are you?
>>
>> Pathetic.
>
> If you think it's so pathetic, why did you start it?

Eh?

It was your good self who "thought" that repeating what has just been
said was "witty".

And it was pathetic.

>>>> Is that the playtime bell ringing for you to get back into the
>>>> classroom?
>>>
>>> No, it's for you.
>>
>> Doubly pathetic.
>
> Again, if you think it's so pathetic, why did you start it?

You're not very good at this, are you? ;-)

On 11/03/2022 01:04 am, Java Jive wrote:
> On 11/03/2022 00:13, JNugent wrote:
>>
>> On 10/03/2022 07:42 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>>>
>>> On 10/03/2022 14:32, JNugent wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 08/03/2022 05:12 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Doubtless you can read Wikipedia as well as me.  His is clearly not
>>>>> an English name, and has been suggested to be French Huguenot in
>>>>> origin, but even if it's just the two great-great-grandparents,
>>>>> that still makes his lying about Europe somewhat hypocritical,
>>>>> don't you think?
>>>
>>>> What "lies" do you mean?
>>
>> [snip JJ's irrelevant rant]
>
> I was answering the question still quoted immediately above, viz: 'What
> "lies" do you mean?' by listing just a few of the many lies that Farage
> has told.  It's only now suddenly 'irrelevant' because otherwise you'd
> have to admit to being proved wrong in argument (yet again), though why
> you should have such difficulty with this is beyond anyone's
> comprehension, because you've had so much chance to practice!
>
>> There are no lies in that.
>
> It wasn't what was being discussed, what was being discussed was
> Farage's many lies.

You could get that obsession treated. But you would need to *want* to be
cured.

On Tuesday, 8 March 2022 at 20:59:35 UTC, Robin wrote:
> On 08/03/2022 17:12, Java Jive wrote:
SNIP

>
> The possible Huguenot origin of the name is irrelevant. It should be
> obvious to the meanest intellect that a surname may be inherited from a
> person who makes up a tiny fraction of his ancestry from 300 years ago.

A tiny fraction, who if he had ben in charge would have not have been allowed in and portrayed on billboards as unwanted.

Fortunately for him some parts of the UK were more enlightened even then.

SNIP

>
> But I do hate hypocrisy.

So why practise it?

> --
> Robin
> reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On 11/03/2022 14:17, R. Mark Clayton wrote:
> On Tuesday, 8 March 2022 at 20:59:35 UTC, Robin wrote:
>> On 08/03/2022 17:12, Java Jive wrote:

<snip>
>>
>> But I do hate hypocrisy.
>
> So why practise it?
>

Where did I do so?

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On 11/03/2022 12:36, Java Jive wrote:
> On 11/03/2022 07:36, Indy Jess John wrote:
>>
>> On 11/03/2022 00:46, Java Jive wrote:
>>>
>>> MEPs are not lobbyists any more than are our own MPs, that is your
>>> fiction/untruth/lie.
>>
>> Our own MPs vote on proposed legislation and when there is a majority in
>> favour the words "The ayes have it", that conclusion becomes law.
>
> <Sigh!> *Exactly* as happens in the European Parliament!

Not so. EU legislation becomes law when the Commission issues it, not
when the MEPs approve it.
>
>> So it is your words "MEPs are not lobbyists any more than are our own
>> MPs" above and not my explanation, which is the lie.
>
> Although IMO it's not an appropriate word, logically, if MEPs are
> lobbyists, so are MPs.

Not so. UK MPs are an executive body. MEPs are not.
>
>> As I said (and you trimmed) I do feel so sorry for you, being unable to
>> understand simple logic. It makes you obsessive.
>
> You've been looking in a mirror again, I'm not the one denying simple
> facts here.
>
You are. A minority of one from my reading of this thread.

On 11/03/2022 13:05, JNugent wrote:
> On 11/03/2022 12:55 am, Java Jive wrote:
>> On 11/03/2022 00:10, JNugent wrote:
>>>
>>> On 10/03/2022 07:34 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>>>>
>>>> How typical that you come late into the argument spouting rubbish
>>>> because you didn't bother to look up the facts, viz: that he has
>>>> *two* German ancestors, not one.
>>>
>>> And did BOTH of those great great grandparents have the name "Farage"
>>> even before they married, which is what they'd need to have had to
>>> reduce the numbers to 1/8th instead of 1/16th?
>>
>> Again, you come in late upon the argument spouting bullshit.  The
>> argument is not about what proportion of his ancestors carried the
>> name Farage, it's about what proportion of his ancestors came from
>> across the Channel.
>>
>>>>> You're *still* using that tactic, are you?
>>>>
>>>> You're *still* using that tactic, are you?
>>>
>>> Pathetic.
>>
>> If you think it's so pathetic, why did you start it?
>
> Eh?
>
> It was your good self who "thought" that repeating what has just been
> said was "witty".
>
> And it was pathetic.

It was your good self that thought a childish remark was witty, when it
was just childishly pathetic.

>>>>> Is that the playtime bell ringing for you to get back into the
>>>>> classroom?
>>>>
>>>> No, it's for you.
>>>
>>> Doubly pathetic.
>>
>> Again, if you think it's so pathetic, why did you start it?
>
> You're not very good at this, are you? ;-)

Seemingly a lot better than you. I note that you've made no
constructive of useful comment as to the actuals argument, no change
there. Join the other shit in my plonk folder.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

In article <t0ft5i$o0m$1@dont-email.me>, Indy Jess John
<bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:
> On 11/03/2022 12:36, Java Jive wrote:
> > On 11/03/2022 07:36, Indy Jess John wrote:
> >>
> >> On 11/03/2022 00:46, Java Jive wrote:
> >>>
> >>> MEPs are not lobbyists any more than are our own MPs, that is your
> >>> fiction/untruth/lie.
> >>
> >> Our own MPs vote on proposed legislation and when there is a majority
> >> in favour the words "The ayes have it", that conclusion becomes law.
> >
> > <Sigh!> *Exactly* as happens in the European Parliament!

> Not so. EU legislation becomes law when the Commission issues it, not
> when the MEPs approve it.

UK legislation can become Law when it gets Royal Assent IIRC. However UK
Government also has many powers to issue what is de facto 'law' under the
guise of 'regulations', etc, without having to go via Parliament.

OTOH A lot of the EU policies are in reality decided by the "Council of
Ministers" (I think that's the term) which means the heads of the National
Goverments who get together in a room and agree between them. This then
feeds into EU regulations/Law.

So it isn't a simple matter to decide which - UK or EU - is most/least
'democratic'.

> >
> >> As I said (and you trimmed) I do feel so sorry for you, being unable
> >> to understand simple logic. It makes you obsessive.
> >
> > You've been looking in a mirror again, I'm not the one denying simple
> > facts here.
> >
> You are. A minority of one from my reading of this thread.

To some extent perhaps because others, like myself, couldn't be arsed to
read through the repeat loops in this thread and the others akin to it. It
was obvious early on that it wasn't worth the bother.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

On 11/03/2022 16:25, Indy Jess John wrote:
> On 11/03/2022 12:36, Java Jive wrote:
>> On 11/03/2022 07:36, Indy Jess John wrote:
>>>
>>> On 11/03/2022 00:46, Java Jive wrote:
>>>>
>>>> MEPs are not lobbyists any more than are our own MPs, that is your
>>>> fiction/untruth/lie.
>>>
>>> Our own MPs vote on proposed legislation and when there is a majority in
>>> favour the words "The ayes have it", that conclusion becomes law.
>>
>> <Sigh!>  *Exactly* as happens in the European Parliament!
>
> Not so.  EU legislation becomes law when the Commission issues it, not
> when the MEPs approve it.

Show me the quote verifying that. As already linked, EU legislation
cannot become law without being approved by the European Parliament.

>>> So it is your words "MEPs are not lobbyists any more than are our own
>>> MPs" above and not my explanation, which is the lie.
>>
>> Although IMO it's not an appropriate word, logically, if MEPs are
>> lobbyists, so are MPs.
>
> Not so. UK MPs are an executive body. MEPs are not.

FALSE! Neither are an executive body, government is the executive body
in the UK, the Commission in the EU:

https://www.politicalsciencenotes.com/articles/meaning-types-and-functions-of-the-executive-organ-of-the-government/344

"But today the monarchy has been abolished to a great extent and
democracy has taken its place. Thus the executive has no power to make
laws, to implement them and to punish those who violate the laws. The
laws are now made by the legislature; the executive implements them and
the judiciary awards punishments for the violation of the laws."

And, as explained countless times, this is the same with the EU, there
is no practical difference that matters between the two. Neither
parliament drafts the vast majority of legislation, both can amend
proposed legislation as drafted by others, both can fail to pass
legislation, which then fails absolutely, and neither implement the
legislation, which is done by the respective executive branches of
government, so I repeat, although IMO it's an inappropriate term, if
MEPs are to be called 'lobbyists', then logically you must apply the
same word to MPs.

> You are.  A minority of one from my reading of this thread.

You're the only one still arguing against me - that might be because I
have convinced some of the others of the simple truth, viz: that most of
the criticisms of the EU are based on Europhobic lies and
disinformation, or simply that others have lost interest but remain
unconvinced. Be that as it may, I can only argue with the man in front
of me, and that's you, because, despite having plenty of opportunity to
practice, you're just too damned stubborn accept simple facts that
demolish your arguments.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 12/03/2022 04:09 pm, Java Jive wrote:
> On 11/03/2022 16:25, Indy Jess John wrote:
>> On 11/03/2022 12:36, Java Jive wrote:
>>> On 11/03/2022 07:36, Indy Jess John wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 11/03/2022 00:46, Java Jive wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> MEPs are not lobbyists any more than are our own MPs, that is your
>>>>> fiction/untruth/lie.
>>>>
>>>> Our own MPs vote on proposed legislation and when there is a
>>>> majority in
>>>> favour the words "The ayes have it", that conclusion becomes law.
>>>
>>> <Sigh!>  *Exactly* as happens in the European Parliament!
>>
>> Not so.  EU legislation becomes law when the Commission issues it, not
>> when the MEPs approve it.
>
> Show me the quote verifying that.  As already linked, EU legislation
> cannot become law without being approved by the European Parliament.
>
>>>> So it is your words "MEPs are not lobbyists any more than are our own
>>>> MPs" above and not my explanation, which is the lie.
>>>
>>> Although IMO it's not an appropriate word, logically, if MEPs are
>>> lobbyists, so are MPs.
>>
>> Not so. UK MPs are an executive body. MEPs are not.
>
> FALSE!  Neither are an executive body, government is the executive body
> in the UK, the Commission in the EU:
>
> https://www.politicalsciencenotes.com/articles/meaning-types-and-functions-of-the-executive-organ-of-the-government/344
>
>
> "But today the monarchy has been abolished to a great extent and
> democracy has taken its place. Thus the executive has no power to make
> laws, to implement them and to punish those who violate the laws. The
> laws are now made by the legislature; the executive implements them and
> the judiciary awards punishments for the violation of the laws."
>
> And, as explained countless times, this is the same with the EU, there
> is no practical difference that matters between the two.  Neither
> parliament drafts the vast majority of legislation, both can amend
> proposed legislation as drafted by others, both can fail to pass
> legislation, which then fails absolutely, and neither implement the
> legislation, which is done by the respective executive branches of
> government, so I repeat, although IMO it's an inappropriate term, if
> MEPs are to be called 'lobbyists', then logically you must apply the
> same word to MPs.
>
>> You are.  A minority of one from my reading of this thread.
>
> You're the only one still arguing against me  -  that might be because I
> have convinced some of the others of the simple truth, viz: that most of
> the criticisms of the EU are based on Europhobic lies and
> disinformation, or simply that others have lost interest but remain
> unconvinced.  Be that as it may, I can only argue with the man in front
> of me, and that's you, because, despite having plenty of opportunity to
> practice, you're just too damned stubborn accept simple facts that
> demolish your arguments.

:-)