Forum menu
they are nominated by our Gov & voted for by our MEPs so I can change them
Wrong
kimbers - Memberso you've gone from you cant influence things to you can influence things a little bit
well at least we've cleared that up!
Yes I can see what a massive swing in opinion you've spotted, well done I'll sound the reversing horns. 🙄
In reality you've probably misread what I've written, but *go ahead and post a picture if it makes you feel victorious.
*written before you did just edit a picture in, with tedious predictability. 😐
you get to vote for your MEP who votes on who is in the European Comission
Wrong
[quote=teamhurtmore ]Sshhh
You lot shhh, I'm hoping tj is going to give me an answer 😉
TJ or Godot?
please explain?
That piece you linked to is very clear. Just read it.
aracer - Member
tjagain » What I am saying is a small part of the electorate cannot control a large part of it. So the UK cannot possibley control the EU parliament.and that's something you accept as being part of a larger democracy, because being part of that larger democracy has other benefits (otherwise we'd all live in city states). Right?
Actually at heart I am an anarchist. 😉 But yes - inherent democratic deficits are a part of representative democracy. Its sometimes referred to as dictatorship of the majority
Personally I think my ideal would be a unified europe of around 150 small states. Uk would be around 8 of them. south east, south west, midlands, north west, north east, Scotland, wales, NI. I believe states of around 5 - 10 million is about as big as you can have with meaningful democracy and I would have the EU to act as an assurer of a level playing field, macro economic, and defense. Everything else devolved down to small states of 5 - 10 million people.
so yes - city states or something close to it would be ideal for me with the overriding continental organisation for the 3 things I mention
mefty - MemberThat piece you linked to is very clear. Just read it.
The President of the Commission is first proposed by the European Council taking into account the latest Parliamentary elections; that candidate[b] can then be elected by the European Parliament or not[/b]
yes seems pretty clear....
😳
thats the president
just the Council selects the Commission, with each government putting forward the members
then subject to hearings at the European Parliament which will question them and then vote on their suitability as a whole
sounds pretty democratic, I like it!
vote on their suitability as a whole
Precisely, so no individual is confirmed by the Parliament, they only have the nuclear option of not appointing the Commission as a whole, hence it only a power which will be exercised in extremis. The end result being the Commission will be appointed by the Governments of the EU.
Yes I was wing to say they voted on the individual
As I said nicely democratic, esp compared to our HOL or cabinet appointment
You have a very odd definition of democracy if someone who is an MP (in the main) is less democratic than a government appointment.
Apple event live from California. Just amazing an American company can make stuff in China amd sell it to us. They are not even in the EU don't you know
https://www.apple.com/apple-events/september-2017/
A federal EU with smaller than the current nation states would be rather interesting. After all, lots of countries (Germany, Spain) are federations of what used to be Duchies and Principalities. In a stronger EU what would the point of Germany be? Just go back to Bavaria, Saxony etc. Likewise Scotland and Wales. There'd be a conundrum for the localists! More local autonomy in a federal EU 🙂
Mefty - do we vote on PM or cabinet? No. Very similar system to the EU
Can we vote out the lords? No. We have people in the legislature that are their because they were buddies with an invador hundreds of years ago and a dozen bishops
the EU is more democratic than Westminster because in the EU ALL officials are voted on by the entire chamber which is proportionately elected.
Mefty - do we vote on PM or cabinet? No. Very similar system to the EU
I don't know about you, but I do.
the EU is more democratic than Westminster because in the EU ALL officials are voted on by the entire chamber which is proportionately elected.
And you call the Brexiters gullible,
Apple event live from California. Just amazing an American company can make stuff in China amd sell it to us. They are not even in the EU don't you know
Bless. Your simple view of how the world works could almost be endearing at times.
Mefty - you vote on the cabinet? The PM? How? Are you a tory MP? me I only get the chance to vote for my local MP
And yes - the EU is far more democratic than Westminster. FPTP v PR. all officials subject to democratic oversight, V no democratic oversight of officials( who elects the lord chancellor? ) etc etc
I vote in an election where I have a very good idea who will be in power depending upon how many MPs from their party are elected, I get to see programmes for government in a form of a manifesto to help me decide. Every member of the Cabinet has been elected other than the Leader of the House of Lords by their local electorate. Both Jonathan Hill and Catherine Ashton have been senior EU officials without ever winning a significant election in their own right in their whole lives - no elected office at all, not even a councillor.
BTW Tory MPs dont elect the cabinet, just another example of how you don't understand how things work.
Right so you don't vote for the PM or cabinet members. You just vote for your local rep like the rest of us.
Our governments of all colours appoint officials with no democratic oversight at all.
The point I am trying to make is these criticisms of the EU are not based on the truth in any way ie they are because of believing in the lies of the europhobic press
so Corbyn has been reading and getting influenced by the europhobic press then, rather than making up his own mind ?
still waiting for someone to explain why he is wrong ?
I think you need to learn about Representative Democracies, they are very common. If you think a Direct Democracy is the only acceptable form I suggest you move to Glarus. The EU is neither.
just off to listen to Nigel F on LBC...
Mefty - its you that was claiming you elected the PM and cabinet and that this was somewhat different to the EU - as I pointed out the EU is actually far more democratic in that its elected by PR, all officials have democratic oversight and that there are no unelected lawmakers unlike in the UK
Democratic up to the point the Commission overrides a parliamentary decision such as some pharma issues a few years back. A bit like the UK cabinet ignoring the house on some issues and overriding or ruling without consultation.
I have a say in a vote that determines who governs us, I don't have that for the EU and I only have a say in who has oversight not executive power. You seem to be a big fan of appointment for the EU, but not for the House of Lords - typical blindness.
The old canard about PR being more democratic, it is a voting system with strengths and weaknesses, the latter are often illustrated on here, FPTP also has strengths and weaknesses - neither is more democratic than the other.
Neither
There are different types of PR.
There are different types of PR.
But we are talking about D'Hondt, having said that there is no perfect system, all have weaknesses.
Mefty (careful with apple autocorrect here) - you seem to have missed the rules of engagement here
I am no fan of elected officials but the difference is that in the EU they have democratic oversight which is better than the UK where there is no democratic oversight.
FPTP is not really democratic. When you get majority governments on a minority of the vote it is seriously flawed.
There are many different PR systems - I vote in 3 different ones in Scotland
I have a say in a vote that determines who governs us, I don't have that for the EU
This is simple nonsense. You have exactly the same say in who governs us in both the EU and the UK
This is simple nonsense.
How many times do you need to be told mefty. Know your place....
....or at the very least respect the thread's rules
I wonder who on here has actually dealt with the EU commission and has some understanding of how they work?
There seems many exspurts on here.
I am dealing directly with the implications not the people. It's fascinating and a mile away IMO from what gets reported.
Behind the scenes, serious people doing serious work and a hell of a lot of planning and preparation already done. The point of equilibrium keeps shifting but ultimately things falling into place at least partially.
Helps to move on....
An interesting piece from CapX on why it really really is all about the money for the EU.
Receivers won't take less, givers won't provide more so the EU is going to be reliant on €10bn of new taxes from somewhere unless it can kick the can down the road (problem "solved" in EU parlance) by getting at least some money from the UK
https://capx.co/its-no-wonder-brussels-isnt-budging-over-the-brexit-bill
The Commission would prefer not to reduce expenditure since the structural funds and agricultural subsidies it distributes help to justify the EU’s existence. Besides, any new budget needs unanimous agreement, and Eastern European countries can be relied on to block cuts in their grants as surely as France will veto any reduction in farmers’ subsidies.
If reducing the budget is out of the question, the EU will have to increase its revenue. A “reflection paper”, issued by the European Commission in the summer, presented a number of ways that it could do this. The Commission takes it for granted that countries won’t increase the amounts they pay to Brussels under the current funding system and so needs to find new sources of money.
The EU only needs to clamp down a bit on its massive corruption loses :
http://www.politico.eu/article/corruption-costs-eu-990-billion-year-rand-study-fraud-funding/
Well MT there has been an awful lot of nonsense and misunderstanding from " We elect a PM" to unaccountable EU officials make laws 🙂
Well MT there has been an awful lot of nonsense and misunderstanding from " We elect a PM" to unaccountable EU officials make laws
I'm waiting for you to counter Jeremy Corbyns comments in the above video...
Mefty - I may well be wrong and feel free to correct me, but ...
Every member of the Cabinet has been elected other than the Leader of the House of Lords by their local electorate.
... as I recall several PMs have been Lords not commons and any member of the Lords can be a member of cabinet. Lords can be created without election - in fact it has been used in the past to get senior folk who lost their seats into the cabinet.
Feel free to show me I'm wrong.
Turnerguy - its the one reason I didn't describe 'cos its a very small amount. Some old fashioned lefties believe the EU would stop them making a leftwing government and there may be some point in that. I didn't watch the vid but thats basically Corbyns objection I believe.
so a 4th reason but a tiny part of the out vote
Very true IGM
Lord chancellors used to be always unelected but the current one is an MP. Loads of unelected ministers and officers of the government over the years from all parties
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/mar/21/revealed-link-life-peerages-party-donations
An exhaustive study by Oxford academics has statistically proven the relationship between donations to parties and nominations for peerages
We are still living with the legacy of the Magna Carta, a popular uprising, that handed power to a hereditary elite, while the peasants who supported it paid the price, was dressed up as democracy in action too....
It all sounds rather familiar actually
The current Cabinet is wholly elected, other than the Leader of the House of Lords. This was also the case for the previous May administration and Cameron's, In fact the last Lord with an "outside" brief was Mandelson. Prior to Blair's vandalism the Lord Chancellor, one of the great officers of state, was by definition a Lord (and an eminent lawyer) as he was effectively the speaker of the HOL and the head of the justice system, which of course included the Law Lords then. Other than those two positions, the only Lords with outside briefs since 79 are Carrington, Young and Amos.
As you are no doubt aware conventions develop in our constitution and I don't think it likely, except in exceptional circumstances, that a Prime Minister will have a member of the House of Lords in the cabinet. A Lord hasn't been Prime Minister since the introduction of universal suffrage, our constitution has moved on a bit since then.
How many times do you need to be told mefty. Know your place........or at the very least respect the thread's rules
I am looking forward to when the HoL are suddenly persona grata when it looks as if they might cause the Brexit bill some trouble. They are rather like the French Football team without the prospect of any flair, consistent in their inconsistencies.
😀