Unelected EU commissioner vows to block elected governments
Discussion
FredClogs said:
Your first point is somewhat disingenuous, in the British system you don't get to decide who leads the country - the winning party members do, you don't get to decide who sits in the cabinet, who sits on what parliamentary commissions, who is chosen to sit in the higher (or lower) courts as judges, who sits in the house of lords and no one in the general population can influence the proposal of new legislation or laws either.
How do you remove David Cameron if you don't agree with him?
This is just the fuzzy and furry nature of democracy, it's not supposed to represent your views and opinions or even a mandate from the masses its supposed to be a robust set of checks and balances on the holding of power.
It is not at all disingenuous. As I have said repeatedly now, there is much I would want to change about our current system. But you don't improve it by taking the bad bits and saying, "yeah well that's a bit crap, lets have some more of that and move the power even further away from the people".How do you remove David Cameron if you don't agree with him?
This is just the fuzzy and furry nature of democracy, it's not supposed to represent your views and opinions or even a mandate from the masses its supposed to be a robust set of checks and balances on the holding of power.
Democracy, true democracy, is all about a mandate from the masses. What we have is not democracy, nothing even like it. I find it very odd that people would choose to have less of a say in how they are ruled, after the last thousand years of history has people struggling to get a voice. 3 generations after women finally got the vote, we're preparing to give a lot of that power away again because....? Well you tell me, why do you support the way the EU works? You're not in favour of kings and queens I'd imagine?
CrutyRammers said:
FredClogs said:
Your first point is somewhat disingenuous, in the British system you don't get to decide who leads the country - the winning party members do, you don't get to decide who sits in the cabinet, who sits on what parliamentary commissions, who is chosen to sit in the higher (or lower) courts as judges, who sits in the house of lords and no one in the general population can influence the proposal of new legislation or laws either.
How do you remove David Cameron if you don't agree with him?
This is just the fuzzy and furry nature of democracy, it's not supposed to represent your views and opinions or even a mandate from the masses its supposed to be a robust set of checks and balances on the holding of power.
It is not at all disingenuous. As I have said repeatedly now, there is much I would want to change about our current system. But you don't improve it by taking the bad bits and saying, "yeah well that's a bit crap, lets have some more of that and move the power even further away from the people".How do you remove David Cameron if you don't agree with him?
This is just the fuzzy and furry nature of democracy, it's not supposed to represent your views and opinions or even a mandate from the masses its supposed to be a robust set of checks and balances on the holding of power.
Democracy, true democracy, is all about a mandate from the masses. What we have is not democracy, nothing even like it. I find it very odd that people would choose to have less of a say in how they are ruled, after the last thousand years of history has people struggling to get a voice. 3 generations after women finally got the vote, we're preparing to give a lot of that power away again because....? Well you tell me, why do you support the way the EU works? You're not in favour of kings and queens I'd imagine?
I'm in favour of anyone who implements stability, control and allows culture free movement of ideas and resources based on the collective good of the largest number of humans it can.
I don't really recognise the "us" and "we" formulated statements, the idea of national sovereignty or independent decision making being anything other than a daft ideal totally incoherent with the management of 500million other people.
I have not real gripe with the way he EU is currently run because I see no real damage or harm that it has done to Europe - I've no doubt it's not perfect or as good as it could be but as it's what we've got its completely reasonable to suspect this could be as good as it could have been, we just don't know, we can't turn back time.
As for kings and queens... As long as the right decisions are made at the right time, what do I care who is making them, let us have philosopher kings?
ATG said:
"Who favour democracy" ... we all favour democracy. And the irony is that the powers that Juncker is talking about exist to deal with a situation where a member state's government starts behaving in such a way that it ceases to have domestic democratic legitimacy. The powers exist to protect democracy, not to undermine it. But don't let that interrupt the hysterical pro-exit ravings.
so you are quite happy for juncker to firstly define "populism" , and then act to undermine any democratically elected individual or party that happens to meet his definition ? he basically said hofer would have been ostracised by the eu had he been elected. his position may not be to my taste, but i support the right of the austrian people to decide who they want to elect to act in their interests.FredClogs said:
The EU parliament and it's organisational structure is no more undemocratic than all the other imperfect democracies around the world.
On the issue in point it's really only formalising what would need to happen anyway, would you be happy if the British MEPs and civil servants in Brussels were sitting down and having to engage with ridiculous far right extremists on a daily basis, no, of course not.
Not sure I agree with you on your first point.On the issue in point it's really only formalising what would need to happen anyway, would you be happy if the British MEPs and civil servants in Brussels were sitting down and having to engage with ridiculous far right extremists on a daily basis, no, of course not.
On your second, the people of a member state would have elected "ridiculous far right extremists". As part of the EU we would therefore have no choice but to sit and engage with them.
As an example, I think most of the SNP are a bunch of twonks that have no place in our parliament. For that matter, add Natalie Bennett, Vince Cable and a number of others to the mix too. But that does not allow the government of the day not to engage with them on a daily basis.
If a regime is severe enough that the powers that be don't want to engage with them, then they should have rules that allow that nation to be kicked out of the EU. But with such movable goalposts that would also seem somewhat dictatorial.
Oh, wait a sec...I've just realised why I'll be voting as I will
Sam All said:
The EU want/need us to save their own skins.
This is the whole point, isn't it?"Ask not what your continent can do for you - but what you can do for your continent."
How would we benefit from the complete collapse of Europe? And if the EU would be to disintegrate, which it may, it's my opinion that the French-German-Belgium axis would remain fairly well intact and be stronger and more of a risk to "us" and the other people of Europe than what we currently have.
It all sounds terribly cliched but Britain being in Europe gives us some real influence over it's direction of travel and the other 440million people in it, including who sits on the commission and who is elected leader of the commission.
Edited by FredClogs on Wednesday 25th May 15:17
FredClogs said:
It all sounds terribly cliched but Britain being in Europe gives us some real influence over it's direction of travel and the other 440million people in it, including who sits on the commission and who is elected leader of the commission.
We already have plenty of influence in the world- and do we want more influence in the EU or just good old business and the same relationship must other countries have with the EU. 
FredClogs said:
I have not real gripe with the way he EU is currently run because I see no real damage or harm that it has done to Europe
Take a look at Greece.
And Spain
And Italy
And Portugal
That these countries are currently functioning is just an illusion. They are being propped up by more and more debt and prevented from failing currently - but eventually the can will prove impossible to kick any further down the road.
Oh, and Ukraine. Let's forget about the EU meddling in Ukraine: http://en.rescue.org.ru/1012_lavrov-eu-admits-its-...
FredClogs said:
This is the whole point, isn't it?
"As not what your continent can do for you - but what you can do for your continent."
How would we benefit from the complete collapse of Europe? And if the EU would be to disintegrate, which it may, it's my opinion that the French-German-Belgium axis would remain fairly well intact and be stronger and more of a risk to "us" and the other people of Europe than what we currently have.
It all sounds terribly cliched but Britain being in Europe gives us some real influence over it's direction of travel and the other 440million people in it, including who sits on the commission and who is elected leader of the commission.
In what way would "..the French-German-Belgium axis... <be>...more of a risk to "us" and the other people of Europe?"As not what your continent can do for you - but what you can do for your continent."
How would we benefit from the complete collapse of Europe? And if the EU would be to disintegrate, which it may, it's my opinion that the French-German-Belgium axis would remain fairly well intact and be stronger and more of a risk to "us" and the other people of Europe than what we currently have.
It all sounds terribly cliched but Britain being in Europe gives us some real influence over it's direction of travel and the other 440million people in it, including who sits on the commission and who is elected leader of the commission.
And you're of the opinion that the EU could collapse if we weren't in it? In which case, wouldn't you have thought we'd have been able to get a bit of a better deal when our PM notes that we might leave? Instead of....nothing.
The political constructs of the EU could crash with no negative side effects whatsoever. If it reverted to a trading block I'd argue that each nation could then adjust and adapt to suit its own predicament. And that nations such as Greece, Spain, Italy and Portugal would all get back on their feet much quicker.
IMO the EU is likely to disintegrate anyway if it keeps going down the path it's following. I don't think being right in the middle of it will be a safeguard to anything. Conversely, if exiting proves that exit from the political nonsense is achievable perhaps a few others might follow giving more of a chance of trading harmony without the s
tty strings?Sam All said:
FredClogs said:
It all sounds terribly cliched but Britain being in Europe gives us some real influence over it's direction of travel and the other 440million people in it, including who sits on the commission and who is elected leader of the commission.
We already have plenty of influence in the world- and do we want more influence in the EU or just good old business and the same relationship must other countries have with the EU. Ok, if that's how you feel then vote out - nobody has a crystal ball. You do realise that most of the countries in the world outside of the EU and North America (a large expansive federal republic) are pretty s
tty in one way or another?FredClogs said:
It all sounds terribly cliched but Britain being in Europe gives us some real influence over it's direction of travel and the other 440million people in it, including who sits on the commission and who is elected leader of the commission.
Less than 10% of the EU parliament and just one commissioner out of 28. Real influence! We saw what that influence bought when Cameron came scuttling back after 'renegotiating' and achieving nothing. And that was while the EU didn't want to lose us. Imagine how they'll treat us when the EU grows even more and we're firmly stuck in it.
All for being the second biggest donor.
FredClogs said:
How would we benefit from the complete collapse of Europe? And if the EU would be to disintegrate, which it may...
As per SOP if you're competent and realistic you plan for eventualities as best you can and do what you can if and when they occur, it's not necessary to sell your soul under the fake hope of preventing any unwanted event from occurring. Fate cannot be bought. As to our remaining In being a means of saving the EU from itself, no chance. Firstly we are mostly ignored apart from the money we pay in. Secondly the fools in charge are more than capable of self-destruction and could be said to be well down the road.FredClogs said:
Do we? Do we really?
Ok, if that's how you feel then vote out - nobody has a crystal ball. You do realise that most of the countries in the world outside of the EU and North America (a large expansive federal republic) are pretty stty in one way or another?
I do realise that most of them are growing rapidly, but the EU market is the same size as 2006. Ok, if that's how you feel then vote out - nobody has a crystal ball. You do realise that most of the countries in the world outside of the EU and North America (a large expansive federal republic) are pretty s
tty in one way or another?Oh, and yes, we're the country with 2nd highest influence in the World: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/t...
Murph7355 said:
As an example, I think most of the SNP are a bunch of twonks that have no place in our parliament. For that matter, add Natalie Bennett, Vince Cable and a number of others to the mix too. But that does not allow the government of the day not to engage with them on a daily basis.
It's absurd to equate Vince Cable with Neo Nazis.Quite absurd.
And since when has anyone in Downing St engaged with the Green Party?
CrutyRammers said:
There are many things about our system which is undemocratic, actually, in the true sense of the word. Representative government is not at all about "rule by the people", it's really just a safeguard against tyranny.
You are correct about oversight by unelected bodies. The point is that the bodies performing the oversight are bound by the law which is made by the elected bit, and have no law making powers themselves.
Whereas, the EU:
- ignores its own laws without sanction (eg the Greek bailouts)
- is a lawmaking body which produces new laws which in many cases override the laws of the member states.
It's not just an oversight body. It's a governing body. Not in any way comparable to the position of our judiciary or HoL.
Democracy is not defined as direct decision making by the people; that is not its true meaning. Representative government, normally known as representative democracy, is entirely democratic.You are correct about oversight by unelected bodies. The point is that the bodies performing the oversight are bound by the law which is made by the elected bit, and have no law making powers themselves.
Whereas, the EU:
- ignores its own laws without sanction (eg the Greek bailouts)
- is a lawmaking body which produces new laws which in many cases override the laws of the member states.
It's not just an oversight body. It's a governing body. Not in any way comparable to the position of our judiciary or HoL.
It is meaningless to say the EU is a governing body. You have to look at its constituent bits, look at what authority they have and how they are held accountable. Juncker is head of the Commission. They get to propose legislation and implement decisions. That makes them civil servants. They can't pass legislation, they can't bring new laws into being. They are appointed by our elected representatives. If you can point out the democratic deficit in that arrangement, I'm all ears.
ATG said:
Democracy is not defined as direct decision making by the people; that is not its true meaning. Representative government, normally known as representative democracy, is entirely democratic.
It may be described as 'entirely' where that reflects the self-imposed limit to a particular view of democracy - but democracy can be more or less direct and more or less responsive. The EU form is far from direct and far from responsive. It's seen as less than the epitome of democracy by various observers and with good reason.Love Democracy then Leave EU
FredClogs said:
I don't really recognise the "us" and "we" formulated statements, the idea of national sovereignty or independent decision making being anything other than a daft ideal totally incoherent with the management of 500million other people.
Except it's not, because people in different countries do not all identify as a single body of 500 million people. Nor will they ever, likely, given differences in language and culture.FredClogs said:
I have not real gripe with the way he EU is currently run because I see no real damage or harm that it has done to Europe - I've no doubt it's not perfect or as good as it could be but as it's what we've got its completely reasonable to suspect this could be as good as it could have been, we just don't know, we can't turn back time.
Aside from greece, italy, etc you mean? Entire generations condemmed to poverty? But of course they're foreigners so don't count I suppose?FredClogs said:
As for kings and queens... As long as the right decisions are made at the right time, what do I care who is making them, let us have philosopher kings?
Which is great as long as they are making the right decisions. But when they are not, you can't do anything about it. Which is the same situation in the EU (and indeed our own system). The difference being, I get a vote on my MP, I get no say at all in the people in the commission.
ATG said:
Democracy is not defined as direct decision making by the people; that is not its true meaning. Representative government, normally known as representative democracy, is entirely democratic.
It's the original meaning. It has come to mean both "representative" and "direct" democracy but really that's just people dropping the qualifier off the end IMO. But enough of semantics.ATG said:
It is meaningless to say the EU is a governing body. You have to look at its constituent bits, look at what authority they have and how they are held accountable. Juncker is head of the Commission. They get to propose legislation and implement decisions. That makes them civil servants. They can't pass legislation, they can't bring new laws into being. They are appointed by our elected representatives. If you can point out the democratic deficit in that arrangement, I'm all ears.
You continually argue that the EU has no control and no powers over member states, but it simply isn't the case. Ask a fisherman, if you can find one. EU laws and directives directly impact how the UK is run. EU law has primacy in areas where member states have ceded competence to it.As for the democratic deficit, again and again. I do not get to vote for those in charge. I cannot remove them.
CrutyRammers said:
You (ATG) continually argue that the EU has no control and no powers over member states, but it simply isn't the case.
If that's being claimed than quite frankly it's a ridiculous claim to make.When the UK is accidentally or deliberately (?) a naughty country and we don't do as we've been told then the power of the EU is still able to extract ££.
The UK has paid £650m in fines for mis-spent EU funding and £500k for not flying EU flag. Most important that one.
On what basis were these fines paid if the EU has no power over the UK?
Did we also have any choice when handing over the coke and hookers economy additional payment...no.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff