j_jza80 Posted June 7, 2016 Share Posted June 7, 2016 That's not true, they have the capability to suggest proposed legislation to the commission. Plus the council that meets 4 times a year is comprised of democratically elected members of constituent states (national representation), with the power to veto. This would probably be a good point to ask you how you feel about the House of Lords in this country? I also don't remember voting for God save the Queen to be our national anthem either. I'd also be very interested to know how many in the exit camp actually turned up to vote for their MEP. That isn't the same thing at all in Britain, elected people have the power. In the EU, it is appointed people who make the decisions, and set the direction. The house of Lords have nothing like the same powers as the EU commission. I have mixed feelings about the Lords. I don't think it should be subject to party politics, and I find the idea of hereditary peers abhorrent. People should be elected based on their knowledge and experience in various fields, which does happen, but being a member of a political party or being born to a certain family shouldnt count. In summary, it is a useful body, but desperately needs reform. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
el_bandido Posted June 7, 2016 Share Posted June 7, 2016 So according to you two wrongs would make a right?? What two wrongs are making a right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imi Posted June 7, 2016 Share Posted June 7, 2016 What two wrongs are making a right? I'll spell it out you don't agree with an unelected body like the House of Lords and are happy to support even more unelected bodies like the EU to make decisions on our behalf. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
el_bandido Posted June 7, 2016 Share Posted June 7, 2016 That isn't the same thing at all in Britain, elected people have the power. In the EU, it is appointed people who make the decisions, and set the direction. The house of Lords have nothing like the same powers as the EU commission. I have mixed feelings about the Lords. I don't think it should be subject to party politics, and I find the idea of hereditary peers abhorrent. People should be elected based on their knowledge and experience in various fields, which does happen, but being a member of a political party or being born to a certain family shouldnt count. In summary, it is a useful body, but desperately needs reform. The unelected House of Lords absolutely has the power to block legislation put through by the democratically elected House of Commons. In the EU the elected people have the power too, nothing gets passed unless agreed by the democratically elected European Parliament. While it is true that the parliament can't directly introduce legislation, it has the power to suggest new legislation to the commission and then amend/pass/block it afterwards. - - - Updated - - - I'll spell it out you don't agree with an unelected body like the House of Lords and are happy to support even more unelected bodies like the EU to make decisions on our behalf. Feel free to quote wherever I said I didn't agree with the House of Lords. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imi Posted June 7, 2016 Share Posted June 7, 2016 I note that you continue to dodge the point Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
el_bandido Posted June 7, 2016 Share Posted June 7, 2016 I note that you continue to dodge the point /QUOTE] Well if you actually got to a point I could directly address, that would help. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndrewOW Posted June 7, 2016 Share Posted June 7, 2016 I'm not sure if it's been mentioned before, but if you're undecided, just think what success the Euro turned out to be. I for one am very pleased we stayed out of that one! I'm voting out* *This may not be my final decision, and other options are available. Possibly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_jza80 Posted June 7, 2016 Share Posted June 7, 2016 The unelected House of Lords absolutely has the power to block legislation put through by the democratically elected House of Commons. In the EU the elected people have the power too, nothing gets passed unless agreed by the democratically elected European Parliament. While it is true that the parliament can't directly introduce legislation, it has the power to suggest new legislation to the commission and then amend/pass/block it afterwards. - - - Updated - - - Feel free to quote wherever I said I didn't agree with the House of Lords. The point is, the elected people in the UK propose legislation, and yes, if it's deemed unsuitable, it can be blocked by the Lords. In the EU, the unelected people propose and repeal the legislation. The elected ones can vote against it, but there's nothing they can do to stop legislation being re-proposed. The EU parliament have the same ability to propose legislation that I do. I can write to a politician and ask them to propose something. So the people with power aren't elected, and the president of the commission is appointed by people who are themselves appointed We have flaws in our democracy, but at least the MP's remain accountable to us, the Commission aren't accountable to anyone. You can probably tell that I'm pretty firm on this, as ideologically I am opposed to centralising power, it is inherently dangerous, and always leads to waste and corruption. You can have international cooperation without having to cede sovereignty, just as we do with our close international allies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
el_bandido Posted June 7, 2016 Share Posted June 7, 2016 The president of the commission is appointed by the democratically elected MEPs and the remainder are appointed by democratically elected heads of state; once the council of 28 is formed it is then subject to the approval of the democratically elected parliament. The European Parliament also have the power to dissolve the commission should they decide to do so. It's not as undemocratic as a lot of shouting here would make it seem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_jza80 Posted June 7, 2016 Share Posted June 7, 2016 "A new team of 28 Commissioners (one from each EU Member State) is appointed every five years. The candidate for President of the Commission is proposed to the European Parliament by the European Council that decides by qualified majority and taking into account the elections to the European Parliament." So the candidate isn't chosen by elected people. You can see straight away how that differs from a true parliamentary democracy. And for all Camerons huffing and puffing, he still wasn't able to stop the alcoholic Jean Claude Juncker from being elected. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
el_bandido Posted June 7, 2016 Share Posted June 7, 2016 "The European Council is the institution of the European Union (EU) that comprises the heads of state or government of the member states" These members are democratically elected heads of state, it's not as if we've just appointed a dictator without any democratic process. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_jza80 Posted June 7, 2016 Share Posted June 7, 2016 They are democratically elected heads of state, but they are not equal. Merkel appears to be allowed to unilaterally decide EU policy on a whim, our PM couldn't even achieve treaty change. To paraphrase Orwell, some animals really are more equal than others. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kendo11 Posted June 7, 2016 Share Posted June 7, 2016 I'm not even against the notion of a European Union, of sorts at least, it's just the beurocratic, wasteful, undemocratic, neoliberal racket we have now that I abhor. If we leave, we get no say on how to improve it. I favour staying in and fighting for change (with a better leader than any of our current crop next time round) as opposed to going in a sulk and turning our backs and heading off into the unknown. Every accusation thrown at the EU can be applied ten fold to our own government (link posted previously). The fact that certain subjects have been allowed to dominate the debate and the important issues have been pushed to one side in favour of headlines and punchlines is disappointing. The scaremongering, stretching of the truth, lies and completely obscure propaganda by both sides - although mainly Boris & Nigel, is wrong. It shows me that to have faith in either side at the moment would be foolish. In. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
el_bandido Posted June 7, 2016 Share Posted June 7, 2016 They are democratically elected heads of state, but they are not equal. Merkel appears to be allowed to unilaterally decide EU policy on a whim, our PM couldn't even achieve treaty change. To paraphrase Orwell, some animals really are more equal than others. was that because the majority of other members democratically opposed him in a vote? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Annabella Posted June 7, 2016 Share Posted June 7, 2016 If we leave, we get no say on how to improve it. I favour staying in and fighting for change (with a better leader than any of our current crop next time round) as opposed to going in a sulk and turning our backs and heading off into the unknown. Every accusation thrown at the EU can be applied ten fold to our own government (link posted previously). The fact that certain subjects have been allowed to dominate the debate and the important issues have been pushed to one side in favour of headlines and punchlines is disappointing. The scaremongering, stretching of the truth, lies and completely obscure propaganda by both sides - although mainly Boris & Nigel, is wrong. It shows me that to have faith in either side at the moment would be foolish. In. /QUOTE] If we stay in we have no chance of improving it. Cameron came back last time with his cap up his ass, with half baked assurances that they could veto. We haven't got any power within. We can change things for our benefit for our country if we leave. If we stay in we can't. It was made very clear at the last set of 'negotiations' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al Massey Posted June 7, 2016 Share Posted June 7, 2016 If we leave, we get no say on how to improve it. I favour staying in and fighting for change (with a better leader than any of our current crop next time round) as opposed to going in a sulk and turning our backs and heading off into the unknown. Every accusation thrown at the EU can be applied ten fold to our own government (link posted previously). The fact that certain subjects have been allowed to dominate the debate and the important issues have been pushed to one side in favour of headlines and punchlines is disappointing. The scaremongering, stretching of the truth, lies and completely obscure propaganda by both sides - although mainly Boris & Nigel, is wrong. It shows me that to have faith in either side at the moment would be foolish. In. /QUOTE] If we stay, I see no way of anything improving for our benefit. However, a threat to leave will surely get things moving. And even if we vote to leave, in the next few years of negotiating or even after, there's nothing to say we can't join again. And with that in mind, we actually have more power out, or threatening with out then we do in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
formatzero Posted June 7, 2016 Share Posted June 7, 2016 If we stay, I see no way of anything improving for our benefit. However, a threat to leave will surely get things moving. And even if we vote to leave, in the next few years of negotiating or even after, there's nothing to say we can't join again. And with that in mind, we actually have more power out, or threatening with out then we do in. I agree ,it,s a shambles of mismatched countries ,far too many to get any chance of them agreeing to the radical change required. If we leave let's see who then instigates any change from within. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevie_b Posted June 7, 2016 Share Posted June 7, 2016 And even if we vote to leave, in the next few years of negotiating or even after, there's nothing to say we can't join again. I disagree. I think it'll be 25 years minimum if we leave, before re-joining is seriously considered. It really is a once in a lifetime choice for many people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al Massey Posted June 7, 2016 Share Posted June 7, 2016 I disagree. I think it'll be 25 years minimum if we leave, before re-joining is seriously considered. It really is a once in a lifetime choice for many people. I don't think it is. That keeps getting banded about but I don't see how. Even if we vote to leave or remain, I don't see this as a once in a lifetime vote. Circumstances change all the time, even if we remain, and things go from bad to worse, I'm sure another vote will pop up very quickly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_jza80 Posted June 7, 2016 Share Posted June 7, 2016 If we leave, we get no say on how to improve it. I favour staying in and fighting for change (with a better leader than any of our current crop next time round) as opposed to going in a sulk and turning our backs and heading off into the unknown. Every accusation thrown at the EU can be applied ten fold to our own government (link posted previously). The fact that certain subjects have been allowed to dominate the debate and the important issues have been pushed to one side in favour of headlines and punchlines is disappointing. The scaremongering, stretching of the truth, lies and completely obscure propaganda by both sides - although mainly Boris & Nigel, is wrong. It shows me that to have faith in either side at the moment would be foolish. In. /QUOTE] Why do you think there will be change though? Even faced with the threat of Britain leaving, they have refused to reform. The EU has demonstrated no desire for change, and their answer for every problem seems to be 'more europe'. Boris Johnson will almost certainly be our next prime minister, maybe Michael Gove, or possibly Theresa May as an outsider. I can't forsee any of them leading a successful reform program in the face of stubborn, entrenched EU leaders. Plus, the 30,000 corporate lobbyists who really run the EU will dictate what sort of reform agenda will be possible, and it will be neoliberal flavoured. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Wilson Posted June 7, 2016 Share Posted June 7, 2016 Anyone watch the Farage V Cameron debate at 9.00 PM tonight? What did you think? I thought Farage did far better. Cameron looked knackered! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevie_b Posted June 7, 2016 Share Posted June 7, 2016 - Why hand a blank bail out cheque for future failed states. That won't happen: https://fullfact.org/europe/explaining-eu-deal-uk-and-eurozone/ In particular: "The UK’s concern that non-euro states might be required to bail out euro countries is also addressed: the deal makes clear that the former don’t have any such budgetary responsibility." Non-euro states have more economic levers they can pull to address their domestic problems (interest rates, devaluation of currency, QE, etc), so I don't think they're a concern. - Why continue to fund failed & failing countries in the EU Are you sure we do this? Our circa £120m per week (not £367m) isn't ring-fenced, so it's hard to say what it gets spent on. But AFAIK the UK's contribution hasn't increased as a result of the Greek crisis, so I assume there's only a small link between what we pay and helping out the Greeks etc. It's the eurozone countries that mainly carry the can for this. - Why let the EU decide how our 367M per week is spent - Why should some unelected body set our spending priorities This is the nature of the beast though. It's like most clubs. You don't always have a say in how your subs are spent. You keep paying because you perceive to get more benefits of membership than it costs in subs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wez Posted June 7, 2016 Share Posted June 7, 2016 Anyone watch the Farage V Cameron debate at 9.00 PM tonight? What did you think? I thought Farage did far better. Cameron looked knackered! Yep, a lot of quick flash polls agree with you too. It's madness that the PM refuses to debate face to face. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Wilson Posted June 7, 2016 Share Posted June 7, 2016 Cameron and his keenness for Serbia and Turkey to join the EU, as addressed to the Commons: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angarak Posted June 7, 2016 Share Posted June 7, 2016 ... Every accusation thrown at the EU can be applied ten fold to our own government (link posted previously). ... It could, but the difference is if we leave our government would be fully accountable and as such cant pass the buck. The public would have the power to change government come election time. At the moment it feels like we're voting for a middleman to act as the EU's UK mouthpiece. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.