|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Nov 4, 2022 12:03:30 GMT
You seem to place a lot of faith in the all powerful EU Commission. But the fact is, it operates like a politburo. It is an entirely unelected body governed over by an unelected president. It operates from behind closed doors, is totally hidden from any form of electoral scrutiny, it is responsible for proposing new European laws and for enforcing those laws on democratically elected governments in EU states. What a shining example of democracy. You must be very proud. You are one of the people who post entirely misleading posts about the EU. 1. The commission is not all powerful. They do have a responsibility to see that EU rules, regs and Laws are followed BUT, IT HAS NO POWER TO PASS ANY rules, regs or laws. It can only put forward suggested changes or propositions, which are then scrutinized by the EU Committee (not the Commission) where if areas of the proposition are considered not acceptable it can be returned to the Commission, repeatedly if necessary, before passing it to the EU Parliament for acceptance. IIRC. some propositions have been kicked into the long grass in the past. 2. The commission is made up from head of governments or head of parliaments of EU member states (all elected individuals in their own right). Its members also have to be accepted by the EU Committee and the EU Parliament. 3. The idea that it avoids scrutiny, behind closed doors, is a nonsense exaggeration of normal procedures. That is plainly obvious because everything they put forward is doubly scrutinised by elected bodies. Yes, a shining example of representative democracy, and despite the often very misleading comments and accusations put out against the EU I fully endorse their honesty and their future aims for a United Europe. The EU Commission in their own words. "The European Commission is responsible for planning, preparing and proposing new European laws. It has the right to do this on its own initiative"ec.europa.eu/info/about-european-commission/what-european-commission-does/law_enThe unelected Commission is not obliged to accept amendments from the elected parliament. This shows which body has the real power. The EU is set up to give the impression of democracy. But the fact is, the EU parliament is like no parliament anywhere in the world, it's a toothless parliament who rubber stamps legislation proposed by an unelected executive. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Nov 4, 2022 12:17:47 GMT
You are one of the people who post entirely misleading posts about the EU. 1. The commission is not all powerful. They do have a responsibility to see that EU rules, regs and Laws are followed BUT, IT HAS NO POWER TO PASS ANY rules, regs or laws. It can only put forward suggested changes or propositions, which are then scrutinized by the EU Committee (not the Commission) where if areas of the proposition are considered not acceptable it can be returned to the Commission, repeatedly if necessary, before passing it to the EU Parliament for acceptance. IIRC. some propositions have been kicked into the long grass in the past. 2. The commission is made up from head of governments or head of parliaments of EU member states (all elected individuals in their own right). Its members also have to be accepted by the EU Committee and the EU Parliament. 3. The idea that it avoids scrutiny, behind closed doors, is a nonsense exaggeration of normal procedures. That is plainly obvious because everything they put forward is doubly scrutinised by elected bodies. Yes, a shining example of representative democracy, and despite the often very misleading comments and accusations put out against the EU I fully endorse their honesty and their future aims for a United Europe. The EU Commission in their own words. "The European Commission is responsible for planning, preparing and proposing new European laws. It has the right to do this on its own initiative"ec.europa.eu/info/about-european-commission/what-european-commission-does/law_enThe unelected Commission is not obliged to accept amendments from the elected parliament. This shows which body has the real power. The EU is set up to give the impression of democracy. But the fact is, the EU parliament is like no parliament anywhere in the world, it's a toothless parliament who rubber stamps legislation proposed by an unelected executive. The EU parliament is unlike any other parliament in the world because that's what the member states want. As already pointed out to you, there is a system whereby the member states can propose changes to the treaties. Can you point to a single attempt to change the relationship between the Parliament and the Commission made by a single member state in all the time the EU has existed? There is also a mechanism whereby EU citizens can petition for change to the treaties. Can you point to a single petition which seeks to change that relationship? No? That's because only a very small handful of English nationalists have ever seen it as a problem. Strange, considering that the UK is one of the least democratic countries in Western Europe, with a system that allows the minority to rule over the majority, etc. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Nov 4, 2022 12:19:41 GMT
LOL, OK Einy. If you say so.
|
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Nov 4, 2022 12:20:36 GMT
LOL, OK Einy. If you say so. Yes, I do say so, Red. If you've got a counter-argument, I'll happily engage it. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Nov 4, 2022 12:24:53 GMT
The EU Commission in their own words. "The European Commission is responsible for planning, preparing and proposing new European laws. It has the right to do this on its own initiative"ec.europa.eu/info/about-european-commission/what-european-commission-does/law_enThe unelected Commission is not obliged to accept amendments from the elected parliament. This shows which body has the real power. The EU is set up to give the impression of democracy. But the fact is, the EU parliament is like no parliament anywhere in the world, it's a toothless parliament who rubber stamps legislation proposed by an unelected executive. The EU parliament is unlike any other parliament in the world because that's what the member states want. As already pointed out to you, there is a system whereby the member states can propose changes to the treaties. Can you point to a single attempt to change the relationship between the Parliament and the Commission made by a single member state in all the time the EU has existed? There is also a mechanism whereby EU citizens can petition for change to the treaties. Can you point to a single a petition which seeks to change that relationship? No? That's because only a very small handful of English nationalists have ever seen it as a problem. Strange, considering that the UK is one of the least democratic countries in Western Europe, with a system that allows the minority to rule over the majority, etc. So it’s good because it hasn’t been challenged ? The voting system in the UK WAS challenged and the result was to stick to the FPTP system iirc. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Nov 4, 2022 12:29:10 GMT
The EU parliament is unlike any other parliament in the world because that's what the member states want. As already pointed out to you, there is a system whereby the member states can propose changes to the treaties. Can you point to a single attempt to change the relationship between the Parliament and the Commission made by a single member state in all the time the EU has existed? There is also a mechanism whereby EU citizens can petition for change to the treaties. Can you point to a single a petition which seeks to change that relationship? No? That's because only a very small handful of English nationalists have ever seen it as a problem. Strange, considering that the UK is one of the least democratic countries in Western Europe, with a system that allows the minority to rule over the majority, etc. So it’s good because it hasn’t been challenged ? The voting system in the UK WAS challenged and the result was to stick to the FPTP system iirc. The fact that it hasn't been challenged means that it is acceptable to 27 democracies which make up the EU, many of which have a longer history of real democracy than the UK. |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Nov 4, 2022 12:38:23 GMT
Democracy does not require that those with their heads in the sand have to be dug up and shown the facts Yes it does. It requires absolute clarity with what is intended most especially if that is transferral of elements of sovereignty and most especially if there are differences of opinion on what things mean. Heads could have been gently placed into the sand by the sibilant whispers over the years of the Europhiles who soothed the furrowed brows of concern with insincere blandishments.  Sandy wants a state 'dig people out of the sand and make them watch/read' squad to be established.  And can't even see the irony of the false positions used by his chums in that 2016 referendum. |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Nov 4, 2022 12:42:29 GMT
So it’s good because it hasn’t been challenged ? The voting system in the UK WAS challenged and the result was to stick to the FPTP system iirc. The fact that it hasn't been challenged means that it is acceptable to 27 democracies which make up the EU, many of which have a longer history of real democracy than the UK. The voting for representatives system hasn't been challenged, in fact UKIP etc relied on it. But the default inability of those elected representatives to initiate EU 'rules' has often been challenged. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Nov 4, 2022 12:45:02 GMT
The fact that it hasn't been challenged means that it is acceptable to 27 democracies which make up the EU, many of which have a longer history of real democracy than the UK. The voting for representatives system hasn't been challenged, in fact UKIP etc relied on it. But the default inability of those elected representatives to initiate EU 'rules' has often been challenged. That's interesting. When was that? |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Nov 4, 2022 12:55:01 GMT
The voting for representatives system hasn't been challenged, in fact UKIP etc relied on it. But the default inability of those elected representatives to initiate EU 'rules' has often been challenged. That's interesting. When was that? Something like a million times on the old forum for a start. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Nov 4, 2022 12:56:12 GMT
That's interesting. When was that? Something like a million times on the old forum for a start. I was talking about member states and those entitled to make a citizen's petition. I've already conceded that a handful of nationalists in the UK want it (well, they don't really want it, they just want to use the 'democracy' argument as a mask for their real motives for wanting to leave the EU). |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Nov 4, 2022 13:06:52 GMT
So it’s good because it hasn’t been challenged ? The voting system in the UK WAS challenged and the result was to stick to the FPTP system iirc. The fact that it hasn't been challenged means that it is acceptable to 27 democracies which make up the EU, many of which have a longer history of real democracy than the UK. No it doesn’t . |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Nov 4, 2022 13:18:41 GMT
Yes it does. It requires absolute clarity with what is intended most especially if that is transferral of elements of sovereignty and most especially if there are differences of opinion on what things mean. Heads could have been gently placed into the sand by the sibilant whispers over the years of the Europhiles who soothed the furrowed brows of concern with insincere blandishments. Sandy wants a state 'dig people out of the sand and make them watch/read' squad to be established. And can't even see the irony of the false positions used by his chums in that 2016 referendum. Why did the government send out a leaflet to every household in the UK in 2016 if that was not an effort to dig people's heads out of the sand. That is what is required clarity as regards what is intended. The government did not rely on their point of view, and what it meant, being disseminated fairly to the electorate by partisan news outlets. It is indeed a competition to keep the heads out of the sand and pointed in the direction from whence the favourable information is coming. I repeat it is easy to say people should not be so galvanised into action but much depends on whether they buried their own heads in teh sand. That point you seem to miss. It is a government's duty to be proactive in engaging with the electorate and clearly indicate their intentions so that the electorate, should they wish, can make an informed choice. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Nov 4, 2022 13:19:06 GMT
The fact that it hasn't been challenged means that it is acceptable to 27 democracies which make up the EU, many of which have a longer history of real democracy than the UK. No it doesn’t . I'm pretty sure it does. If no member state or EU citizen has petitioned for a change, that must mean there is no real momentum for change. Anyhow, how would a different system work? You want the representatives from the different EU nations in Parliament to be able to introduce legislation. The vast majority of legislation is about standardising laws in the EU to facilitate trade. I can't remember why the system was set up in the way it is, but I can think of a possible reason. I could be wrong, but one reason is that it just couldn't work fairly. Suppose the issue the was the standardisation of trademarks. Wouldn't the countries with similar trademark laws just group together in Parliament to initiate a law that makes the new standardised law across all the EU the same as their trademark law? That would mean less disruption for their own system. This would happen again and again, with the countries with the most votes in Parliament always getting their own way. Isn't it better to have an independent commission with no national affiliations drawing up a trademark law which works best for everyone, rather than one that is just most convenient for the countries with the largest voting blocks? If the Commission wasn't drawing up the best standardised laws, then the whole of the EU would just end up with versions of the law in the countries with the biggest voting blocks, not the best and most efficient laws. That's just off the top of my head. There might be a flaw in it that's not apparent, but I'm sure you'll point it out if it's there. |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Nov 4, 2022 13:22:40 GMT
Two points: 1. It's obviously perfectly reasonable for countries that trade together to agree to common standards for the goods that they're trading. That's normal. What is NOT normal is for an overarching bureaucracy to determine the standards for ALL products being produced in those countries. That would be like the UK telling the USA that it would have to adopt all our product standards before they can sell us beef. That's what the EU does. If you're an EU member absolutely every manufacturer in the UK has to obey EU regulations regardless of whether they trade with the EU or not. It imposes huge burdens on small companies. What? They regulate everything that is saleable in the single market. There needs to be common standards. Oh dear, another thicko. So, say we wanted to do a trade deal with the USA and they said that before we could do a deal on any product we had to agree to realign all our product regulations with theirs. What do you think a rational response would be? Two words the second one being "off". The trouble with you guys who support the EU is that you never actually understand what it is. You've never actually studied it. |
|
