You basically confirmed part of what I said.
Brexited | the worst threads live the longest
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
Hannan on Sky News...says the UK is undemocratic because we're in the EU, and then has it pointed out to him that the UK has an unelected House of Lords.
And a monarchy.
Mail Online overtakes NY Times as top online newspaper
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-16743645
The Biggest Newspaper In The World Is ... The Daily Mail!?
https://www.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeedpo...ld-is-the-dail?utm_term=.jqL1vvpzZ#.msZ3DD6l8
One of whom is a convicted felon - Lord Archer.
I think the Mail gets a lot of controversy related clicks, right enough, with a lot of people going for the absurd stories as opposed to the actual hard news.
I can't find a time stamp on the buzzfeed one. Alright, they were the tabloid with the most site impressions in some month in 2012 (according to comscore).
Bloody good novelist mind.
Yep, the pervy photos of underage Meghan etc... but they all count as clicks tbf.
Either way, 44.5 million uniques a month is pretty fecking staggering.
I have replied that Cabinet Ministers are for the most part are the directly elected representatives of the people first, then become members of the Cabinet selected by the PM (there have been occasionally the odd Lord recruited by the PM who is not directly elected).
None of the Commissioners are elected, they are put forward by their respective countries and selected for their Commission briefs by the President of the Commission. In that sense the process is similar to the Cabinet selection process, but as far as being directly elected and accountable to the public, either in their own country or in the EU, that is not the case for Commissioners.
Do you doubt that Mrs Merkel and increasingly Macron are the most influential National leaders in the EU, basically because they wield the 'biggest sticks' whether that be in terms of population, economies, land mass even. Do you doubt that ultimately they get their way, within the EU on all major decisions, certainly Mr Merkel does/did?. Still not sure, try asking the Greeks about that!
As far as the EU public is concerned these might as well be random people, they are unelected by and cannot be removed directly by the general populace, if they do make terrible laws!
I think you will find a good many people in the EU, whether brexiteers or not, have found the 'freedom of movement' has been detrimental to their lives, because it restricts individual Governments ability to control such matters and not just in Britain.... which is where I think we came in!
Don't agree, I think they are playing cards close to their chests and the press desperate for something to report guess at what they think is going on.
(As for new faces see (*) below)
Has Mr Carney published his best scenario for Brexit after the voter was known he did conceded that Britain could not only survive brexit, but could prosper post brexit... of course he was only able to utter this when the last Chancellor took his foot of Carney's neck?
The Governor is of course struggling to retain a foothold with the brexiteers, just in case Theresa does manage to pull off a deal without having to spend Billions! You know my views on this, I don't think that is possible, in my view Theresa has to get us out of the EU and it will be a costly business in terms of finance and in terms of political careers and in that sense (*) I do think there will be some new faces around post brexit.
Oh I think they do, the 'me first' sentiment is loud and clear with a lot of remoaners!
The EU will crumble because its undemocratic and finds it impossible to change/reform itself in all the areas that matter, it might last a bit longer, even without Merkel, if it can screw a decent amount out of Theresa, which it looks like doing!
It's pointless repeating the same thing, yes MPs are elected to be MPs of their constituents say 50000 people, that's it, not to be cabinet ministers and certainly not be be given specific jobs which they are evidently not qualified to do. You still have not replied after 3 or 4 attempts as to who puts them forward. Did Merkel put forward Julian King for example because she has more power than anyone according to you, no she didn't.
As I've explained the Commissioners are answerable to the EU parliament which is elected by the public.
Yes Merkel, Macron and May have more power because they are the leaders of the countries which have the largest populations - I said I knew I'd have to keep repeating this.
The freedom of movement has been debunked numerous times already, not the EU's fault May was an awful Home Secretary.
Carney's job is to keep the UK afloat, he's basically a salesman for the UK. Your deal is basically almost done, it's going to be £50/60bn but not to have the trade deal just to start the trade talks that's if they also sort out the Irish border and the Citizens rights, they've got until Monday. If they want the same deal as before we all know the cost and that is not included in the £50/60bn which will be spread over many years.
Funnily enough most people vote selfishly, I can honestly say I never voted for what my next-door neighbour's interest is and I fail to see what benefit voting Brexit will be for anyone in the UK and if Brexiters say they were voting unselfishly that is the biggest joke yet.
At least you confirmed this hope of Brexiters that the EU will crumble, but get extremely upset if someone criticises the Uk, it's sadly pathetic. Just think another 16 months and you'll be on the way to paradise and won't have to worry about the EU (apart from to feed you).
So why keep doing it?
see previous post (perhaps you need to visit specs savers Paul?) "None of the Commissioners are elected, they are put forward by their respective countries and selected for their Commission briefs by the President of the Commission"
No, you've stated that, but not answered my question of how are they answerable, e.g. can the public via the MEP's vote them out, if so how is this actioned and on what grounds? Also can the public in the absence of direct elections to the Commission, dismiss any Commissioners, individually or collectively, by calling for votes of no confidence to be actioned within the EU Parliament, or when the public discontent or disagreement with their policies reaches a pre-defined or recognised level, or again, can Commissioners only be dismissed by Parliament for acts of fraud or corruption, or similar misuse of public office actions?
I am aware from the Santer Resignations as you say 1999, that 'pressure' was brought on the whole Commission, ultimately via the ECJ to such an extent the whole Commission resigned rather then face a public exposure. However as far as I am aware, even though its almost twenty years ago, nothing has changed significantly in the EU Codes of practice or Governance that would/could specifically prevent another Santer situation arising once again. If you can indicate where there is now preventative measures in place and/or where such gross acts of corruption (and one suspects incompetence) have been prevented in the intervening time period, I would be grateful if you would point them out!
The truth is the EU Commissioners are just not answerable directly to the public, via direct election, just acknowledge that then we can move on.
The original argument on this between us, or so I thought, was over the issue of the democracy or relative democracy between the EU and the UK systems. Would you for example accept that Commissioners are similar to the British Senior Civil Servants, in the functions they undertake and how they are chosen, except they whilst not elected by the public they are possibly better known to the public than their UK counterparts? If you can then we can debate sensibly the relative merits of democracy in the two systems?
No need to keep repeating yourself, although I notice you tend to do it on a regular basis, even when the point is no longer an issue, these people carry the big sticks and will wield them as and when appropriate, agreed!
Really and you've spent ages and numerous posts telling me its what drives the brexiteers!
This issue, in the UK at least, was a hot topic long before May was Home Secretary, this one is laid firmly at Blair's door, indeed some (but not me) would argue the whole upsurge in UKIP support, the notion of Brexit, et al was caused by Blair's actions on this matter and the Labour Government's subsequent refusal to even discuss the issues raised on control of immigration. If you are looking for a scape-goat for Brexit, you need not look much further. As one reporter put it had Blair shot Ukip's fox, things might have turned out differently.
Personally this has never been an issue for me and is not why I voted to leave. I want the UK away from the equivalent of the runaway train that is the EU, destined for destruction and running on tracks it has laid for itself.
By the way I think the final price for the deal (and the divorce bill together) will be around £80B, if we pay more than that 'we was robbed'... but even so I would take it, just to get the hell out of it!
They are heavily, heavily, heavily adbertised. Everywhere you go on the internet you see some Daily Mail “article” aka bombastic bullshit advertised on outbrain and similar bullshit amplifiers.
I’m sure there is ads on this site too for it!
It's pointless repeating it because you won't accept you're wrong, if I said something was black you would say it was white.
So the person who makes cheap childish remarks.. oh dearie me...
And you still haven't answered the question, five times and counting.. who .. not which country
If you don't know how the system works you'd better look it up or refer to mine or other people's posts on the subject.
You still haven't said how Merkel and Macron wave there big sticks and yet May who has the equivalent power of Macron does not.
Why do keep referring to 1999 - why not refer to Davis yesterday in Parliament trying to conceal facts from everyone, democracy at its finest, oh no he wasn't there, la la la (not listening are you?)
UKIP support is very easy to see why and no I haven't said Freedom of Movement drives Brexiteers, what I have been saying is xenophobia and racism drive Brexiters and for the support of UKIP.
You cannot see that all this argument and discussion debunks all the other pretences of why Brexiters want to leave the EU - it's amusing to keep going round and round - the economic arguments that to anyone with basic economic sense can see will be disastrous for the UK, then the laws that nobody can name, then the EU undemocracy from a country who is more undemocratic than the EU, they are all proved wrong and then we come back to the real reason and strangely not one Brexiter dislikes foreigners. Then we go around again.
This particular discussion started when you said the Commissioners are the masters of the EU which has been proved wrong... next..
Could say the same for you!
This has been answered/implied a number of times previously, this is why you came up with the preposterous accusation I had said Merkel/Macron had appointed more than one Commissioner, what is the matter with you? This is a nonsense matter, who else from each Country would nominate their Commissioner, except the Prime Minister/Head of Government, how else would some of these dubious characters get to become Commissioners? Certainly wouldn't be elected by the public would they?
I've looked in vain Paul, please point me to where exactly you have explained how the Commissioners are directly accountable/answerable to the public, instead of keeping just stating they are, via the MEP's, specifics please, second or is it third time of asking :-
E.G.
Can the EU public directly or via the MEP's vote them out, if so how is this actioned and on what grounds?
Can the EU public in the absence of direct elections to the Commission, dismiss any Commissioners, individually or collectively, by calling for votes of no confidence in the Commission to be actioned within the EU Parliament?
When public discontent or disagreement with the Commission policies reaches a pre-defined or recognised level, what action against the Commissioners can be taken, by the public?
Or again, can Commissioners only be dismissed by Parliament for acts of fraud or corruption, or similar misuse of public office, actions?
They use it sparingly its true, but because of the size of their respective sticks are able to apply pressure, diplomatic, economic, personal, to achieve their aims. Like all leaders they 'do deals' some of them obvious some maybe not so obvious, they provide weight/backing to others arguments, sometimes collective opposition, but they will co-operate with each other, join forces if you will, to push certain matters, the Germanic/Franco axis has always been at the heart of the EU.
Previous UK PM's have been seen to have influence, in the early days of the newly emerging EU, but May of course because of the impending brexit now has limited 'stick wielding' powers, certainly as far (once we are out) as the rush to oblivion the EU is planning, or at least Juncker is advocating, goes. Also the UK's power/influence overall has been waning, we are not in the euro zone, our opt outs and rebates are not popular with other members and taken altogether represent good reasons why we should no longer be a member of the EU, but we rather would like to continue trade with it... if possible, at least until it hits the buffers.
Because after the Santer Resignation debacle this was the perfect opportunity for the EU to reset itself, to prevent a repeat situation ever occurring and to address other democratic issues, it didn't really have to be a root and branch change, but it was a time and opportunity for change, that wasn't taken. The very fact that the EU did not take this opportunity, in the eyes of many (including my own) and of others who like me at the time worked for the EU, it was a grave error, which unfortunately after the enlargement was an opportunity not available again, simply because of the size, it was an example of where the advantages of scale, didn't work! One such example was in terms of independent financial audits, there was some change, the EU Court of Auditors etc., but again there was and as far as I am aware still is, no independent outside audit perspective.
Myself and also I suspect many others, have since come to the conclusion that the EU as it stands is incapable of initiating change from within, it is just possible, ironically, that brexit might just cause another Santer moment a chance for redemption, with the UK being the sacrificial offering or catalyst, (depends on how you view things) that precipitates that moment.., but don't hold your breath!
No, I agreed with your comments when you asked about this matter and nothing has been proved wrong, Commissioners are unelected and they make the laws.
Last edited:
UKIP would not be a force if British working class families thought they had a reasonable chance of aspiration in society.
Its trendy to call it racism but it is more about fairness in society for those whose families have paid their taxes and want decent jobs and a chance to be a homeowner.
I'm aware of the point that people who want a better life would vote for something that would help them. UKIP were and never will be the solution. They could have called themselves We Hate Foreigners Party but even now that wouldn't quite be acceptable.
If all goes according to Brexit plan the UK will be outside the EU in 16 months time and thus so-called independent - thence the need for UKIP and Farage as a political person will be obsolete.
You see if you were gullible enough to believe that independence of the UK from the EU was all they wanted , why does Farage appear in front of a poster of non-European people or why does he creep around other RW figures in Europe and the USA. Very simple he is a racist and xenophobe. He couldn't care less if the Uk was part of the EU or not after all he's stolen a living as an MEP for a very long time from the very organisation he claims to despise. He'll even get a nice pension from them if the UK cough up the money.
When I was young it was the Irish, Indian sub-continent, African and Caribbean who suffered the abuse but in those days it was fairly hidden because you would only see people like skinheads openly showing their hatred for foreigners. Since Brexit it is now much more acceptable for ordinary people to openly express their xenopobia.
It's always been there and UKIP appeal to this inherent suspicion of foreigners in the British mentality.
Now when the Uk leave the EU in which way will those people be better off, as most people who know what they're talking about predict the Uk will suffer tremendously economically and the first to suffer will be the ones who have the least now.
All of this has nothing to with UKIP.
That isn't what UKIP was selling.
Finally we're making some progress, very slow but you move one step forward and two steps back. It must have been painful for you to concede that the same person who nominates the EU Commissioner also appoints the Cabinet but then you spoil it by saying dubious characters. Did the Uk Head of State nominate a dubious character or is it only the 27 other Heads of States who nominated a dubious character, looks like your inherent suspicion of foreigners is peeking through.
I never said Macron or Merkel nominated more than one - you keep saying the Commissioners are the masters of the EU and on the other hand say Merkel and Macron are waving their big stick, which one is it? - is it the Commissioners or Merkel/Macron controlling the EU , by your own admission it can't be both.
Now the accountability, in my first post on the subject and in the item quoted from the EU it explains how this works, you should try harder. Hint - 2/3rds majority in EU parliament vote of no confidence.
Now I have a problem - I live in Rushcliffe and my MP is Kenneth Clarke, I am a Tory and voted for him and I am pro-Remain like him.
Unfortunately Theresa May has appointed a half-wit as Brexit secretary. The said half-wit is not my MP and I can't vote him out and in any case there is no election scheduled till 2022 - I've written to Theresa May but a robot replied and said they couldn't do anything to assist me. I want the half-wit out of office, what do I do?
Sorry who made the laws again?
I'm not quite sure if you're suggesting migration creates this unfairness?
Or you're saying its misdirected anger?
Those same people call Labour the 'politics of envy'. Oh the irony.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42178038
Net migration has fallen by 100,000 since the Brexit vote. That's significantly higher than I'd have expected.
Net migration has fallen by 100,000 since the Brexit vote. That's significantly higher than I'd have expected.
It's a bit fake newsy that story even though its factual. It's fallen so much relatively because there's been a spike in recent years (probably to do with Brexit itself).
So, horrendously expensive education and a rampant housing market is the EU‘s fault? Sorry, but that’s the UK‘s responsibility.
Be careful not to tie yourself up in knots! This has never been an issue as far as I'm concerned the cabinet appointment is already a directly elected by the public as an MP, the Commissioners are not elected at all, what is so difficult to understand about that?
Can't answer for other countries, but over the years there have been some dubious characters nominated by British PM's, Mandelson (also known by the press as the Prince of Darkness) three times he had to resign or get booted out of the Cabinet, but he was nominated as a Commissioner, also 'windbag' Kinnock, was also a glorious nominee, its probably more than likely the jobs for the boys is also replicated elsewhere, after all it is known as the gravy-train!
No, but you said I said it!
Merkel and Macron orchestrate, point the direction, draw the red lines, etc. the Commissioners deliver the policies, the laws, this is where the analogy with UK Senior Civil Servants would be useful if you could accept it, but you can't, you still cling to trying to say the Commissioners somehow have public authorisation but of course they don't!
Is this what you are referring to?
Amended Extract
What does the Commission do?
Proposes new laws
The Commission is the sole EU institution tabling laws for adoption by the Parliament and the Council that:
- protect the interests of the EU and its citizens on issues that can't be dealt with effectively at national level;
- get technical details right by consulting experts and the public.
- Sets EU spending priorities, together with the Council and Parliament.
- Draws up annual budgets for approval by the Parliament and Council.
- Supervises how the money is spent, under scrutiny by the Court of Auditors.
- Together with the Court of Justice, ensures that EU law is properly applied in all the member countries.
- Speaks on behalf of all EU countries in international bodies, in particular in areas of trade policy and humanitarian aid.
- Negotiates international agreements for the EU.
Commissioners -they make the laws and are unelected
Lots of power there for Commissioners (come on admit it they are at least unelected Civil Servants, at best Masters of the EU)
Exercise your vote at the next election, but you cannot do that with Commissioners can you?
Last edited:
Looks like Brexit has ultimately sent us on our way to a United Ireland me thinks, a soft (if that's what its called) border is unworkable. Wonder what Arlene will say to that considering she's propping up the current government.
That half-wit is my mum's MP. Haltemprice & Howden in E. Yorks is one of the safest Tory seats in the land.
He is something of a local hero too.
Do you have problem understanding English, I can switch to French if that makes it easier to understand.
You've avoided all the points again but keep referring back to 15 to 20 years ago and we all know what happened then. But you seem to referring to problems with UK commissioners, do you mean it's the UK that nominates dubious characters? Just as well the UK is leaving then, don't want these type of people. Who knows who Theresa May may nominate next, could be John Redwood...
I have not said that Merkel and Macron appointed more than one Commissioner each, please quote it without playing with the words of my quote. You will note that I pointed out to you that each country appoints one Commissioner each.
One minute you say that Merkel and Macron point the direction and draw the red lines and the next you say that the Commissioners are the masters, surely you can see this makes no sense whatsoever. Furthermore, neither of these are true. If you'd stop inventing things and lying you may make more sense.
I don't recall mentioning civil servants, you're mixing up posters again but you're getting closer , civil servants are not elected either. Difference is the Commissioners are nominated in 5 year cycles. The next commission appointments, as I've already advised will be made in 2019, there could be a whole new batch of 27 commissioners, no UK of course and Juncker won't be President.
Out of the quotes you missed this little gem:
Once legislation is passed by the Council and Parliament, it is the Commission's responsibility to ensure it is implemented. It does this through the member states or through its agencies.
As for voting out the Brexit secretary I've already explained why I can't vote him out, better read that bit again, by the way since my post I have 30000 other voters saying the same thing , even the Labour voters in my constituency look as if they will join us, the SNP have indicated that they will support us, now just to rally the other Tory remainers and some Labour ones - still can't do anything, next election is in 2022 and he's not my MP, only the unfortunate people of his constituency like Jippy's poor mum can get rid of him.
I've just been thinking back to how I voted when I lived in the UK and although I lived in quite a few different constituencies, they were all very safe seats and my vote actually counted for nothing the whole time, at least my vote in the 1975 referendum counted.
@Paul the Wolf , you are wasting your time.
I know but it's amusing and at the same time , you never know, other marginal Brexiters may realise they've been duped.
On reading this I first took you to mean your vote would only count if it were a deciding vote in an otherwise absolutely balanced election. But then I realised that it apparently counted in '75 and that wasn't balanced, so it must be something else. A plea for proportional representation perhaps? No, one extra vote still wouldn't count for anything, unless it actually tipped the result, would it? Ah, the clue might be in '75, a vote only counts if it's for the winning side?
I suppose one day there will be so many people that don't believe in democracy that we'll lose it. History and circles and that.
No, he's talking about the first past the post system. If you're in a safe constituency where the result is basically decided before the election your vote is meaningless to the wider process. Especially if you support a smaller party.
Yet it counted in the 75 referendum, which was binary and so completely first past the post. Take your hobby-horse somewhere else.
Yet it counted in the 75 referendum, which was binary and so completely first past the post. Take your hobby-horse somewhere else.
Eh? In a binary referendum every vote directly counts towards the final count. In a FPTP system small parties are inherently disadvantaged by the system and if you're in an area where your smallish party will get 5-10% then there's no point in voting. Don't want to get too much into that in this thread though.
It has been surprising that in some of the previous posts about EU/UK democracy little was mentioned about how strange the system in the UK is. Not that it doesn't have its advantages, but with a totally unelected second house and no proportional representation it is possibly the least fair of modern democracies.
I'm no Corbynite but if he came in and twatted the House of Lords there wouldn't be too many tears shed, I think.