Webbo Posted 24 February 2016 Author Posted 24 February 2016 the right to sack leaders? please elaborate? People we can vote out at an election. There are people running things in Europe that have never been elected and we can't vote out.
Thracian Posted 24 February 2016 Posted 24 February 2016 What would happen to the companies like rail gas electricity and others that other countries own parts of. Will car manufacturers find it cheaper to move abroad if ne UK employment laws are brought in that do not protect the employee? Could it lead to more disruption and strikes? These are things I have concerns about. There are a lot of things that the EU laws protect the ordinary person and that could change. You are a pessimistic sod. Stop worrying. Some weeks ago I read that the HSBC would likely move its headquarters from the UK over our EU vote. I said no chance - and so it was announced a few weeks ago. They're staying put. Why? It's not for me to speculate - and I'm not going to - but you can be sure there are damned good reasons.
Thracian Posted 24 February 2016 Posted 24 February 2016 Absolutely, let's start dreaming. There's lots of niches we can be brilliant in...and some we already are. I can only see the situation improving still more.
Carl the Llama Posted 24 February 2016 Posted 24 February 2016 People we can vote out at an election. There are people running things in Europe that have never been elected and we can't vote out. One last time: There is no person in a position of power in Europe who wasn't either directly elected by the citizens of their respective country or else elected after unanimous agreement amongst the aforementioned directly elected representatives. Every last one of them has a limited term depending on their own country's election procedures or of 5 years if they're an MEP or any of the 'unelected' representatives (I think it's 5 years anyway, stand to be corrected). I must say I would be happy to see the term length reduced to a maximum of 4 years. And yes there are ways to get rid of these 'unelected' individuals without waiting for their term to come to an end (though they can be voted back in if the commissioners and MEPs agree that they've done a good job). The President of the European Council is the only one without a fixed term but he's more of a debate chair than a president anyway - it's like complaining that you don't vote for the speaker of the house.
davieG Posted 24 February 2016 Posted 24 February 2016 We're a small Island perhaps we should become a tax haven and entice all those European Countries to register themselves here.
Webbo Posted 24 February 2016 Author Posted 24 February 2016 One last time: There is no person in a position of power in Europe who wasn't either directly elected by the citizens of their respective country or else elected after unanimous agreement amongst the aforementioned directly elected representatives. Every last one of them has a limited term depending on their own country's election procedures or of 5 years if they're an MEP or any of the 'unelected' representatives (I think it's 5 years anyway, stand to be corrected). I must say I would be happy to see the term length reduced to a maximum of 4 years. And yes there are ways to get rid of these 'unelected' individuals without waiting for their term to come to an end (though they can be voted back in if the commissioners and MEPs agree that they've done a good job). The President of the European Council is the only one without a fixed term but he's more of a debate chair than a president anyway - it's like complaining that you don't vote for the speaker of the house. I don't remember voting for Jean Claude Junker or Donald Tusk, tell me how I can vote them out of office?
Carl the Llama Posted 24 February 2016 Posted 24 February 2016 I don't remember voting for Jean Claude Junker or Donald Tusk, tell me how I can vote them out of office? If you want to see Jean Claude removed then contact your MEP - if your reasons are good enough they'll be able to rally the support of other MEPs to vote against his presidency should the Council nominate him again. If there's reason enough to believe he's been deliberately malign in his role there are procedures to have him removed early. As for Donald do you ever honestly see yourself passionately wanting to remove the man responsible primarily for chairing debates between the European leaders and seeking consensus amongst them? I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure he has no executive powers.
Webbo Posted 24 February 2016 Author Posted 24 February 2016 If you want to see Jean Claude removed then contact your MEP - if your reasons are good enough they'll be able to rally the support of other MEPs to vote against his presidency should the Council nominate him again. If there's reason enough to believe he's been deliberately malign in his role there are procedures to have him removed early. As for Donald do you ever honestly see yourself passionately wanting to remove the man responsible primarily for chairing debates between the European leaders and seeking consensus amongst them? I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure he has no executive powers. Their characters are immaterial, they might be the most wonderful people on earth but what if their successor is is a cvnt? The fact that he doesn't answer to the electorate means that it's an undemocratic system.
Carl the Llama Posted 24 February 2016 Posted 24 February 2016 Their characters are immaterial, they might be the most wonderful people on earth but what if their successor is is a cvnt? The fact that he doesn't answer to the electorate means that it's an undemocratic system. Webbo I answered your question about the head of the European Commission before addressing the second part of your question about the President of the European Council by stating that I'm not sure why you're so het up about having no say in what is essentially their version of a house speaker. I must have missed your outrage at having no say in John Bercow's appointment. I agree that a person's character is irrelevant to the question of how they are voted for and how they are removed so I'm not sure why you're bringing it up.
Webbo Posted 24 February 2016 Author Posted 24 February 2016 Webbo I answered your question about the head of the European Commission before addressing the second part of your question about the President of the European Council by stating that I'm not sure why you're so het up about having no say in what is essentially their version of a house speaker. I must have missed your outrage at having no say in John Bercow's appointment. I agree that a person's character is irrelevant to the question of how they are voted for and how they are removed so I'm not sure why you're bringing it up. The Commission was set up from the start to act as an independent supranational authority separate from governments; it has been described as "the only body paid to think European".[40] The members are proposed by their member state governments, one from each. However, they are bound to act independently – neutral from other influences such as those governments which appointed them. This is in contrast to the Council, which represents governments, the Parliament, which represents citizens, the Economic and Social Committee, which represents organised civil society, and theCommittee of the Regions, which represents local and regional authorities.[2] Through Article 17 of the Treaty on European Union the Commission has several responsibilities: to develop medium-term strategies; to draft legislation and arbitrate in the legislative process; to represent the EU in trade negotiations; to make rules and regulations, for example in competition policy; to draw up the budget of the European Union; and to scrutinise the implementation of the treaties and legislation.[41] The rules of procedure of the European Commission set out the Commission's operation and organisation.[7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Commission So we have one commissioner who may have been appointed by a previous govt and they are supposed to be independent of the democratically elected govt that appointed them. Their job is to develop medium-term strategies; to draft legislation and arbitrate in the legislative process; to represent the EU in trade negotiations; to make rules and regulations. And they're not answerable to anyone.
Carl the Llama Posted 24 February 2016 Posted 24 February 2016 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Commission So we have one commissioner who may have been appointed by a previous govt and they are supposed to be independent of the democratically elected govt that appointed them. Their job is to develop medium-term strategies; to draft legislation and arbitrate in the legislative process; to represent the EU in trade negotiations; to make rules and regulations. And they're not answerable to anyone. I'll just post this again quickly: You can clearly see here that EC legislature has to be ratified by the European Parliament and the relevant ministers from each state (ie. if it's an agricultural law being proposed the Council of Ministers will comprise the member states' agricultural ministers). In fact, keep reading that wikipedia page you quoted it should clear a lot up for you plus I'm getting bored of explaining the same things over and over.
Webbo Posted 24 February 2016 Author Posted 24 February 2016 I'll just post this again quickly: You can clearly see here that EC legislature has to be ratified by the European Parliament and the relevant ministers from each state (ie. if it's an agricultural law being proposed the Council of Ministers will comprise the member states' agricultural ministers). In fact, keep reading that wikipedia page you quoted it should clear a lot up for you plus I'm getting bored of explaining the same things over and over. For the last time then, can we vote out the European Commission or any of it's members and replace them with people who will develop medium-term strategies; to draft legislation and arbitrate in the legislative process; to represent the EU in trade negotiations; in the way we want. No graphs just a yes or no answer.
Guest MattP Posted 24 February 2016 Posted 24 February 2016 For the last time then, can we vote out the European Commission or any of it's members and replace them with people who will develop medium-term strategies; to draft legislation and arbitrate in the legislative process; to represent the EU in trade negotiations; in the way we want. No graphs just a yes or no answer. I'd give up, it's like watching a law firm with billions just paying a fortune to drown a smaller firm in paperwork so they can obfuscate and never actually go to court. The people you are arguing with are ones who have given up on the idea of independent nation states anyway, they firmly believe politicians from Luxembourg should be making laws for every nation connected to it.
Carl the Llama Posted 24 February 2016 Posted 24 February 2016 For the last time then, can we vote out the European Commission or any of it's members and replace them with people who will develop medium-term strategies; to draft legislation and arbitrate in the legislative process; to represent the EU in trade negotiations; in the way we want. No graphs just a yes or no answer. Actually that's for the first time; it's a rewording of an earlier question you've asked a couple of times with a newly defined target. You don't really seem interested in how I respond to you though unless it's to say that you're absolutely right; throughout this thread you've been ignoring the responses you don't like (I notice we've stopped discussing Mr. Tusk's legitimacy) and questioning the semantics of the ones you really don't like so I'll save us both a lot of aggravation and just let wikipedia do the talking. College[edit]For members of the incumbent Commission, see Juncker Commission. The Commission is composed of a college of "Commissioners" of 28 members, including the President and vice-presidents. Even though each member is appointed by a national government, one per state, they do not represent their state in the Commission.[59] In practice, however, they do occasionally press for their national interest.[60] Once proposed, the President delegates portfolios among each of the members. The power of a Commissioner largely depends upon their portfolio, and can vary over time. For example, the Education Commissioner has been growing in importance, in line with the rise in the importance of education and culture in European policy-making.[61] Another example is the Competition Commissioner, who holds a highly visible position with global reach.[59] Before the Commission can assume office, the college as a whole must be approved by the Parliament.[2] Commissioners are supported by their personal cabinet who give them political guidance, while theCivil Service (the DGs, see below) deal with technical preparation.[62] Appointment[edit] Floor 13 of the Berlaymont, Commission's meeting room The President of the Commission is first proposed by the European Council taking into account the latest Parliamentary elections; that candidate can then be elected by the European Parliament or not. If not, the European Council shall propose another candidate within one month.[5] The candidate has often been a leading national politician, but this is not a requirement. In 2009, the Lisbon Treaty was not in force and Barroso was not "elected" by the Parliament, but rather nominated by the European Council; in any case, the centre-right parties of the EU pressured for a candidate from their own ranks. In the end, a centre-right candidate was chosen:José Manuel Barroso of the European People's Party.[63] There are further criteria influencing the choice of the candidate, including: which area of Europe the candidate comes from, favoured as Southern Europe in 2004; the candidate's political influence, credible yet not overpowering members; language, proficiency in French considered necessary by France; and degree of integration, their state being a member of both the eurozone and the Schengen Agreement.[64][65][66] In 2004, this system produced a number of candidates[67] and was thus criticised by some MEPs: following the drawn-out selection, the ALDE group leader Graham Watson described the procedure as a "Justus Lipsius carpet market" producing only the "lowest common denominator"; while Green-EFA co-leaderDaniel Cohn-Bendit asked Barroso after his first speech "If you are the best candidate, why were you not the first?"[68][69] Following the election of the President, and the appointment of the High Representative by the European Council, each Commissioner is nominated by their member state (except for those states who provided the President and High Representative) in consultation with the Commission President, although he holds no hard power to force a change in candidate. However the more capable the candidate is, the more likely the Commission President will assign them a powerful portfolio, the distribution of which is entirely at his discretion. The President's team is then subject to hearings at the European Parliament which will question them and then vote on their suitability as a whole. If members of the team are found to be too inappropriate, the President must then reshuffle the team or request a new candidate from the member state or risk the whole Commission being voted down. As Parliament cannot vote against individual Commissioners there is usually a compromise whereby the worst candidates are removed but minor objections are put aside so the Commission can take office. Once the team is approved by parliament, it is formally put into office by the European Council (TEU Article 17:7). Following their appointment, the President appoints a number of Vice-Presidents (the High Representative is mandated to be one of them) from among the commissioners. For the most part, the position grants little extra power to Vice-Presidents, except the first Vice-President who stands in for the President when he is away.[59] Since 2009 the First Vice-President has gained further power by also being the High Representative. Dismissal[edit]The European Parliament can dissolve the Commission as a whole following a vote of no-confidence but only the President can request the resignation of an individual Commissioner. However, individual Commissioners, by request of the Council or Commission, can be compelled to retire on account of a breach of obligation(s) and if so ruled by the European Court of Justice (Art. 245 and 247, Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union). If anything in there needs explaining please consult me after you've tried reading other pages of wikipedia(or for word definitions try dictionary.com).
Webbo Posted 24 February 2016 Author Posted 24 February 2016 Actually that's for the first time; it's a rewording of an earlier question you've asked a couple of times with a newly defined target. You don't really seem interested in how I respond to you though unless it's to say that you're absolutely right; throughout this thread you've been ignoring the responses you don't like (I notice we've stopped discussing Mr. Tusk's legitimacy) and questioning the semantics of the ones you really don't like so I'll save us both a lot of aggravation and just let wikipedia do the talking. If anything in there needs explaining please consult me after you've tried reading other pages of wikipedia(or for word definitions try dictionary.com). Yes or no?
Carl the Llama Posted 24 February 2016 Posted 24 February 2016 You can argue both. Undoubtedly the answer you want is: No Webbo, on second thoughts you're absolutely correct. This EU thing's a shady attempt to undermine democracy all over Europe and you've convinced me that we should leave. But I could equally say: Yes we vote for the guys who give them their jobs as well as the guys who hold them accountable for their decisions, almost exactly like in a cabinet style of government.
Webbo Posted 24 February 2016 Author Posted 24 February 2016 I'm not trying to persuade you to do anything. If you want to be part of a Federal Superstate that's up to you. If you're happy with how things are run then that's your prerogative. Those of us who want change are neither stupid nor brainwashed by Rupert Murdoch. Our opinions are legitimate too.
Carl the Llama Posted 24 February 2016 Posted 24 February 2016 I'm not trying to persuade you to do anything. If you want to be part of a Federal Superstate that's up to you. If you're happy with how things are run then that's your prerogative. Those of us who want change are neither stupid nor brainwashed by Rupert Murdoch. Ah good. I do want a federal superstate because it's better than having different laws every few hundred kilometres and it breeds a sense of unity across borders rather than confirming our differences. Being an idealist I'd like to see that idea expanded into a world government but baby steps and all that. I don't think I've once claimed it to be a great success, I thought I was making it clear that I want to stay despite its failings because the general idea is too important to just give up on - in your case over what I wholeheartedly believe to be unfair misgivings about it being democratic; as Alf suggested earlier it seems you don't class this brand of democracy within your definition of the term. But even if we disagree at least you have clearly defined concerns instead of banging the right-wing drum like a big pompous child mentioning no names.
theessexfox Posted 24 February 2016 Posted 24 February 2016 Proportional Representation, not the PR+ or - nonsense that we voted for a few years back. PR means that if you get 10% of the votes, you get 10% of the MP's, absolutely straight forward and perfectly democratic. That's not a voting system, you talking Alternative Vote, Single Transferable Vote, Party List, Additional Member System? A variety of PR systems with different pros and cons, all of which ultimately would likely fail to provide strong and stable government (but that's a different matter).
digitalalba Posted 24 February 2016 Posted 24 February 2016 That's not a voting system, you talking Alternative Vote, Single Transferable Vote, Party List, Additional Member System? A variety of PR systems with different pros and cons, all of which ultimately would likely fail to provide strong and stable government (but that's a different matter). PR is not AV, STV, PL or AMS. PR is the most democratic voting system ever created. It most likely would create a coalition, but if you want as many voices in Parliament as possible, then we have to adopt a voting system to ensure that happens. If you want the elite to constantly keep voices away, FPTP. The only reason we have a referendum on EU membership, is because of another voice, predomanently UKIP's - democracy.
theessexfox Posted 24 February 2016 Posted 24 February 2016 E PR is not AV, STV, PL or AMS. PR is the most democratic voting system ever created. It most likely would create a coalition, but if you want as many voices in Parliament as possible, then we have to adopt a voting system to ensure that happens. If you want the elite to constantly keep voices away, FPTP. The only reason we have a referendum on EU membership, is because of another voice, predomanently UKIP's - democracy. My apologies then if that's true, can't find anything about it as a pure system on it's own, are there multi-member constituencies? Or how does it work?
Claridge Posted 24 February 2016 Posted 24 February 2016 Know of a better alternative? In 2010, 52.8% of all votes cast, didn't get someone into Parliament. First past the post is the most undemocratic voting system, and that's why we have it. 50% of votes in the election (15m) went to losing candidates, while 74% of votes (22m) were ‘wasted’ – i.e. they didn't contribute to electing the MP http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/blog/system-crisis#sthash.0iDag9sq.dpuf At least the EU voting system is reasonably fair, which brings me to what will happen to UKIP if the leave campaign wins, will they crash as a political force? They will lose 13? MEP's, that's got to be more than 50% of their electoral success, one of the reasons they got 4 million votes last year. And you know everyone would vote the same under PR?
digitalalba Posted 24 February 2016 Posted 24 February 2016 Ah good. I do want a federal superstate because it's better than having different laws every few hundred kilometres and it breeds a sense of unity across borders rather than confirming our differences. Being an idealist I'd like to see that idea expanded into a world government but baby steps and all that. I don't think I've once claimed it to be a great success, I thought I was making it clear that I want to stay despite its failings because the general idea is too important to just give up on - in your case over what I wholeheartedly believe to be unfair misgivings about it being democratic; as Alf suggested earlier it seems you don't class this brand of democracy within your definition of the term. But even if we disagree at least you have clearly defined concerns instead of banging the right-wing drum like a big pompous child mentioning no names. Does your superstate logic stretch to all countries?
digitalalba Posted 24 February 2016 Posted 24 February 2016 E My apologies then if that's true, can't find anything about it as a pure system on it's own, are there multi-member constituencies? Or how does it work? If you get 10% of the votes, you get 10% status in Parliament, in our case, 65 MP's.
Carl the Llama Posted 24 February 2016 Posted 24 February 2016 Does your superstate logic stretch to all countries? What do you mean?
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.