I always thought the Speaker's role was simply that of a chairman of the

[Herbert Augustus Chapman]

debate. But now, in addition to braying like a depraved mule, the old sex-caser appears to be having some considerable impact on our nation's history. I am a remainer but the idea of scuppering the vote by stealth in this way leaves me very uncomfortable.

There is going to be a GE and Diana Abbott will be Home Secretary God help us. Expect bizarre new laws to implement thought policing. How about, for example, it being an offence to publicly suggest that any of the blame for Hillsborough falls on the scousers rather than the whole thing being entirely the fault of the police. I'm sort of only half joking here :-(

[AFC East]

debate. But now, in addition to braying like a depraved mule, the old sex-caser appears to be having some considerable impact on our nation's history. I am a remainer but the idea of scuppering the vote by stealth in this way leaves me very uncomfortable.

There is going to be a GE and Diana Abbott will be Home Secretary God help us. Expect bizarre new laws to implement thought policing. How about, for example, it being an offence to publicly suggest that any of the blame for Hillsborough falls on the scousers rather than the whole thing being entirely the fault of the police. I'm sort of only half joking here :-(

Ms. Abbot is a nice person, but not a future Home Sec.

Bercow has told May to stop wasting everybody's ****ing time and sort out a deal her party can support. Seems like good advice and one that might lead to Brexit.

[Burney]

debate. But now, in addition to braying like a depraved mule, the old sex-caser appears to be having some considerable impact on our nation's history. I am a remainer but the idea of scuppering the vote by stealth in this way leaves me very uncomfortable.

There is going to be a GE and Diana Abbott will be Home Secretary God help us. Expect bizarre new laws to implement thought policing. How about, for example, it being an offence to publicly suggest that any of the blame for Hillsborough falls on the scousers rather than the whole thing being entirely the fault of the police. I'm sort of only half joking here :-(

Yes. Almost as if membership of an anti-democratic technocracy has profoundly undermined our democratic processes and institutions and utterly corrupted our political representatives, innit?

The penny fùcking drops. Fùckssake! :rolleyes:

[AFC East]

Yes. Almost as if membership of an anti-democratic technocracy has profoundly undermined our democratic processes and institutions and utterly corrupted our political representatives, innit?

The penny fùcking drops. Fùckssake! :rolleyes:

This is a mess entirely made in the Tory party. Aside from the obvious connection, it has nothing to do with the EU. It is quite simply a lack of political wherewithal at virtually every step.

[eastgermanautos]

This is a mess entirely made in the Tory party. Aside from the obvious connection, it has nothing to do with the EU. It is quite simply a lack of political wherewithal at virtually every step.

We have a similar problem over here. (AFC East, I expect you live in some New England sh!thole?) We have incumbent Republicans. But they do not fully embrace replacing the US of A with an updated version of the Spanish Inquisition. "The Potomac Inquisition," if you like.

That's what I would do, were I them.

[IUFG]

This is a mess entirely made in the Tory party. Aside from the obvious connection, it has nothing to do with the EU. It is quite simply a lack of political wherewithal at virtually every step.

No. It is a mess created by the members of parliament.

If the political parties and their members hadn't have weaponised Brexit and used it for personal and political party gains, and instead used that energy to find a deal, we'd be sailing out of the EU into the (some kind of) sunset.


Agreed, the EU have to do fúck all, really, as they hold the stronger cards.

[Burney]

This is a mess entirely made in the Tory party. Aside from the obvious connection, it has nothing to do with the EU. It is quite simply a lack of political wherewithal at virtually every step.

Horseshít. By abdicating responsibility for vast swathes of our legislative processes to an unelected foreign bureaucracy, we have degraded the quality and ability of our parliamentarians to the point where they are unable to legislate effectively, display a truly pathetic grasp of policy detail and have lost all respect for their offices and for their democratic responsibilities, traditions, precedents and duties.

Parliament has, by inches, been separated from the people to such an extent that there is now a vast and unbridgeable gulf between them. We consequently have parliamentarians whose first loyalty is not to this country but to Brussels and a speaker who has now chosen to breach the single most important aspect of his role - impartiality - in order to aid the cause of a hostile foreign power against an elected and Royally-appointed government.

And this is not a Tory problem. This is a democracy problem - a voter problem. The fact that people can spout the former without realising the latter is rather at the heart of the matter.

[Sir C]

Ms. Abbot is a nice person, but not a future Home Sec.

Bercow has told May to stop wasting everybody's ****ing time and sort out a deal her party can support. Seems like good advice and one that might lead to Brexit.

A divisive, racist race-baiter, yes. A 'nice person', no. Very much no.

[Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult]

Horseshít. By abdicating responsibility for vast swathes of our legislative processes to an unelected foreign bureaucracy, we have degraded the quality and ability of our parliamentarians to the point where they are unable to legislate effectively, display a truly pathetic grasp of policy detail and have lost all respect for their offices and for their democratic responsibilities, traditions, precedents and duties.

Parliament has, by inches, been separated from the people to such an extent that there is now a vast and unbridgeable gulf between them. We consequently have parliamentarians whose first loyalty is not to this country but to Brussels and a speaker who has now chosen to breach the single most important aspect of his role - impartiality - in order to aid the cause of a hostile foreign power against an elected and Royally-appointed government.

And this is not a Tory problem. This is a democracy problem - a voter problem. The fact that people can spout the former without realising the latter is rather at the heart of the matter.

Dear God, you're unhinged.

There are many theories on why we have such a woeful callibre of politician nowadays compared to the latter half of the C20th. But EU membership isn't one of them.

If you think any MP's loyalty to the EU is more than their loyalty to their own interests, their party and their consituents, let alone to their country you're deranged. But that's because you can't see the blindingly obvious - that a great many MPs believe EU membership to be in the interests of their constituents and the nation as a whole.

And why is it you lot only describe Brussels bureaucrats as unelected, never our own ones?

The irony of this whole fiasco being down to the red lines drawn up not by our elected representatives but by Nick'n'Fi, two unelected bureaucrats, is delicious.

And if you don't think the speaker should uphold constitutional precedence, then how do you think things should work? Make it up on the fly? The Brexiters have tried that for the last 2-3 years and it doesn't look like the best way to do things, imo.

You talk about impartiality but you're now in the stage where you are twisting everything to be seen through the prism of your views on Brexit. Not healthy.

If a speaker had used this to stop a Lab govt. doing something you hated, you'd be raising a glass to King James VI/I and telling us all that this is why we're better than foreigners with no history and their silly, continental written constitutions.

[Herbert Augustus Chapman]

I think the point is that the colossal self ****ing that Brexit has become was architected by your friends In the Conservative party who have held office throughout the whole debacle.

I seem to recall the day after the vote you were quite pleased, smugly so, with those you now rail against as traitors. We had, in a moment, regained our self respect and sovereignty, and Brussels would shortly be offering a smorgasbord of inducements to us to remain which we would politely decline as we made a dignified exit because, apparently, we held all the aces.

We would be massively wealthier from day one of our leaving in addition to entering lucrative new trade deals with Ghana and Brazil (America was included initially but your mate Trump fúcked us off).

[Burney]

Dear God, you're unhinged.

There are many theories on why we have such a woeful callibre of politician nowadays compared to the latter half of the C20th. But EU membership isn't one of them.

If you think any MP's loyalty to the EU is more than their loyalty to their own interests, their party and their consituents, let alone to their country you're deranged. But that's because you can't see the blindingly obvious - that a great many MPs believe EU membership to be in the interests of their constituents and the nation as a whole.

And why is it you lot only describe Brussels bureaucrats as unelected, never our own ones?

The irony of this whole fiasco being down to the red lines drawn up not by our elected representatives but by Nick'n'Fi, two unelected bureaucrats, is delicious.

And if you don't think the speaker should uphold constitutional precedence, then how do you think things should work? Make it up on the fly? The Brexiters have tried that for the last 2-3 years and it doesn't look like the best way to do things, imo.

You talk about impartiality but you're now in the stage where you are twisting everything to be seen through the prism of your views on Brexit. Not healthy.

If a speaker had used this to stop a Lab govt. doing something you hated, you'd be raising a glass to King James VI/I and telling us all that this is why we're better than foreigners with no history and their silly,continental written constitutions.

I don't think you're in a position to call anyone unhinged when all you do is come on here and dribble incoherent shíte. Fùck off.

How fùcking dare you try and tell me what I would or would not feel if the boot were on the other foot? You know fùck all about me, you presumptuous cùnt. Fùck off.

The speaker has been demonstrably inconsistent in his application of precedent and you know it, you disingenuous prick. Fùck off.

The only thing you like about the EU is that it allowed you and your worthless, stinking, wastrel scum mates to fart around Europe playing at rebellion and making the place unpleasant for everyone else for a decade or so. The fact that this support for a corporatist technocracy is wildly inconsistent with your childish anti-establishment pose doesn't bother you as, like most slavish hypocrites, you have cognitive dissonance down to a fine art. When push comes to shove, you are a deeply, deeply conformist little fùckpig Fùck off.

As for your pathetic whataboutery regarding our unelected officials, the shortcomings of our system do not justify accepting the shortcomings of another system. That is obvious to anyone with a functioning brain cell. What's more, it's within our power to change our system - it is not within our power to change the EU. Fùck off.

Just fùck off. Cùnt.

[Sir C]

I don't think you're in a position to call anyone unhinged when all you do is come on here and dribble incoherent shíte. Fùck off.

How fùcking dare you try and tell me what I would or would not feel if the boot were on the other foot? You know fùck all about me, you presumptuous cùnt. Fùck off.

The speaker has been demonstrably inconsistent in his application of precedent and you know it, you disingenuous prick. Fùck off.

The only thing you like about the EU is that it allowed you and your worthless, stinking, wastrel scum mates to fart around Europe playing at rebellion and making the place unpleasant for everyone else for a decade or so. The fact that this support for a corporatist technocracy is wildly inconsistent with your childish anti-establishment pose doesn't bother you as, like most slavish hypocrites, you have cognitive dissonance down to a fine art. When push comes to shove, you are a deeply, deeply conformist little fùckpig Fùck off.

As for your pathetic whataboutery regarding our unelected officials, the shortcomings of our system do not justify accepting the shortcomings of another system. That is obvious to anyone with a functioning brain cell. What's more, it's within our power to change our system - it is not within our power to change the EU. Fùck off.

Just fùck off. Cùnt.

:hehe: Now that's what I call a robust rebuttal. :hehe:

[Burney]

:hehe: Now that's what I call a robust rebuttal. :hehe:

I do feel better for it. :hehe:

[Pokster]

:hehe: Now that's what I call a robust rebuttal. :hehe:

He should have said what he feels rather than pussy footing around the subject

[Herbert Augustus Chapman]

Ms. Abbot is a nice person, but not a future Home Sec.

Have you had dealings with her or know of someone who has so can attest to this niceness? I know a public persona is not the best evidence to go on but she has always struck me as slightly sinister. I think it's her serpentine and menacing delivery. And the way she lost no time attacking that old Tory bird for using the profoundly offensive word 'colour'.

[WES]

I am unfamiliar with the internal workings of the EU. But if we delay I am told that we will have to participate in EU elections, yet I am also told that the EU is unelected.

Anyone know which it is? :rubchin:

[IUFG]

I don't think you're in a position to call anyone unhinged when all you do is come on here and dribble incoherent shíte. Fùck off.

How fùcking dare you try and tell me what I would or would not feel if the boot were on the other foot? You know fùck all about me, you presumptuous cùnt. Fùck off.

The speaker has been demonstrably inconsistent in his application of precedent and you know it, you disingenuous prick. Fùck off.

The only thing you like about the EU is that it allowed you and your worthless, stinking, wastrel scum mates to fart around Europe playing at rebellion and making the place unpleasant for everyone else for a decade or so. The fact that this support for a corporatist technocracy is wildly inconsistent with your childish anti-establishment pose doesn't bother you as, like most slavish hypocrites, you have cognitive dissonance down to a fine art. When push comes to shove, you are a deeply, deeply conformist little fùckpig Fùck off.

As for your pathetic whataboutery regarding our unelected officials, the shortcomings of our system do not justify accepting the shortcomings of another system. That is obvious to anyone with a functioning brain cell. What's more, it's within our power to change our system - it is not within our power to change the EU. Fùck off.

Just fùck off. Cùnt.

Easy, tiger

:hehe:

[Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult]

I don't think you're in a position to call anyone unhinged when all you do is come on here and dribble incoherent shíte. Fùck off.

How fùcking dare you try and tell me what I would or would not feel if the boot were on the other foot? You know fùck all about me, you presumptuous cùnt. Fùck off.

The speaker has been demonstrably inconsistent in his application of precedent and you know it, you disingenuous prick. Fùck off.

The only thing you like about the EU is that it allowed you and your worthless, stinking, wastrel scum mates to fart around Europe playing at rebellion and making the place unpleasant for everyone else for a decade or so. The fact that this support for a corporatist technocracy is wildly inconsistent with your childish anti-establishment pose doesn't bother you as, like most slavish hypocrites, you have cognitive dissonance down to a fine art. When push comes to shove, you are a deeply, deeply conformist little fùckpig Fùck off.

As for your pathetic whataboutery regarding our unelected officials, the shortcomings of our system do not justify accepting the shortcomings of another system. That is obvious to anyone with a functioning brain cell. What's more, it's within our power to change our system - it is not within our power to change the EU. Fùck off.

Just fùck off. Cùnt.

Ooooh. Touchy.

Now where did I say that the UK's shortcomings justify accepting the EU's? I didn't. I simply said it was deliciously ironic that those who banged on about "unelected bureaucrats" were having their dream dismantled in part by the red lines drawn up by two unelected bureaucrats.

Just like it's ironic that those who wanted to take back control called our judges traitors for upholding the rule of law in this country.

And for the record, my life dossing around Europe has no bearing on my desire to remain in the EU. I'm a globalist. The C19th concept of modern nation states is clearly going to give way to continental sized economies.

But I have spent my entire adult life trying to bring people from different nations, classes, religions, castes and cultures together.

To say it's just about the Teknivals would be as stupid as claiming I want the reunification of India just so I have more Urdu speaking cities to doss around taking drugs in.

And there's no inconsistancy between my support for technocratic govt and my lifestyle. Brexit has proved most fückwits shouldn't be let anywhere near a polling booth. And politicians think far too short term, they only care about winning the next election.

Much as it pains me to say it, China has vastly out-performed India during the globalisation of the last 2-3 decades. Because China can think long term while in India, not only do their elections make them short-termist, but they also have to deal with perpetual coalitions of parties representing different castes and regions.

I'm not calling for autocracy, but do I think the civil service running the country advised by different committes made up of a combination of normal people and experts in that field could do any worse than this shower? No.

And of course I'm a hypocrite. I want to live in my pseudo-anarchic, self-policing Asterisk's village, while expecting the rule of law to reign outside. I want to live in a community which doesn't care about money while having a lovely global economic system outside to build the roads and make the trucks and drill the oil and build the speakers and farm the food and brew the booze that we need to throw a party.

Do you really think we're all so stupid that we aren't aware of our own hypocrisy? It forms the basis of much of our self-deprecating humour.

And finally:

"What's more, it's within our power to change our system - it is not within our power to change the EU. Fùck off."

What makes you think that we share a definition of us? I consider myself a European and it's clearly within our power to change the EU.

I accept that it's harder than working within one nation, but that's the nature of a union pooling sovereignty.

[WES]

I don't think you're in a position to call anyone unhinged when all you do is come on here and dribble incoherent shíte. Fùck off.

How fùcking dare you try and tell me what I would or would not feel if the boot were on the other foot? You know fùck all about me, you presumptuous cùnt. Fùck off.

The speaker has been demonstrably inconsistent in his application of precedent and you know it, you disingenuous prick. Fùck off.

The only thing you like about the EU is that it allowed you and your worthless, stinking, wastrel scum mates to fart around Europe playing at rebellion and making the place unpleasant for everyone else for a decade or so. The fact that this support for a corporatist technocracy is wildly inconsistent with your childish anti-establishment pose doesn't bother you as, like most slavish hypocrites, you have cognitive dissonance down to a fine art. When push comes to shove, you are a deeply, deeply conformist little fùckpig Fùck off.

As for your pathetic whataboutery regarding our unelected officials, the shortcomings of our system do not justify accepting the shortcomings of another system. That is obvious to anyone with a functioning brain cell. What's more, it's within our power to change our system - it is not within our power to change the EU. Fùck off.

Just fùck off. Cùnt.

'deeply conformist little fùckpig'

That's my favourite part of that rant. :hehe:

I haven't seen Burney rant like that since Jorge ran away.

[Herbert Augustus Chapman]

I am unfamiliar with the internal workings of the EU. But if we delay I am told that we will have to participate in EU elections, yet I am also told that the EU is unelected.

Anyone know which it is? :rubchin:

I have no doubt Berni will explain but let him calm down a bit first; he's just had one of his episodes :-D Something to do with the EU being a technocracy

[Ash]

I am unfamiliar with the internal workings of the EU. But if we delay I am told that we will have to participate in EU elections, yet I am also told that the EU is unelected.

Anyone know which it is? :rubchin:

The Commission (executive) are not elected.

[WES]

The Commission (executive) are not elected.

Are decisions taken by the executive or as a result of a vote by the elected representatives?

[Ash]

And of course I'm a hypocrite. I want to live in my pseudo-anarchic, self-policing Asterisk's village, while expecting the rule of law to reign outside. I want to live in a community which doesn't care about money while having a lovely global economic system outside to build the roads and make the trucks and drill the oil and build the speakers and farm the food and brew the booze that we need to throw a party.


So there we have it. You support the EU because you openly despise democracy and wish to be ruled by technocrats and giant capitalist corporations.

Yet you hang around with yellow vests, boast of decades of selfish nihilism and pretend to be a rebel.

Why would anyone take you seriously?

[Ash]

Are decisions taken by the executive or as a result of a vote by the elected representatives?

The parliament cannot propose legislation, only rubber-stamp it. Why do you think the commission are unelected? Why do you think nobody gives a stuff about European elections and almost no-one knows who their MEP is?

[Herbert Augustus Chapman]

Are decisions taken by the executive or as a result of a vote by the elected representatives?

Far too much legislation just seems to trickle out unannounced and like most people, I didn't really care til I saw some that would impact me directly.

Specifically, some laws were being proposed that would prevent me, as a biker, doing my own servicing and maintenance on my own bike! - ostensibly a safety issue but in reality, I suspect, the devil making work for idle and overpaid bureaucrats.

Now a soft handed sissy like you that can't even change a bicycle tyre would probably agree but I will defend my right to maintain my own machinery with the same ferocity the Yanqi defends his right to arm himself to the teeth. You prise my spanners from my cold dead hand.

[Herbert Augustus Chapman]

The parliament cannot propose legislation, only rubber-stamp it. Why do you think the commission are unelected? Why do you think nobody gives a stuff about European elections and almost no-one knows who their MEP is?

Basically a parliament that doesn't appear to parley a great deal :nod:

[WES]

The parliament cannot propose legislation, only rubber-stamp it. Why do you think the commission are unelected? Why do you think nobody gives a stuff about European elections and almost no-one knows who their MEP is?

Um, that sounds like our democracy. If by 'rubber-stamp' you mean 'vote on'. And UK citizens being ambivalent to European elections does not make them any less democratic.

I think I understand the situation now, many thanks.

[IUFG]

So there we have it. You support the EU because you openly despise democracy and wish to be ruled by technocrats and giant capitalist corporations.

Yet you hang around with yellow vests, boast of decades of selfish nihilism and pretend to be a rebel.

Why would anyone take you seriously?

Don't forget the looting, a.

the looting of haute couture boutiques...

that'll smash the system.

[Sir C]

Far too much legislation just seems to trickle out unannounced and like most people, I didn't really care til I saw some that would impact me directly.

Specifically, some laws were being proposed that would prevent me, as a biker, doing my own servicing and maintenance on my own bike! - ostensibly a safety issue but in reality, I suspect, the devil making work for idle and overpaid bureaucrats.

Now a soft handed sissy like you that can't even change a bicycle tyre would probably agree but I will defend my right to maintain my own machinery with the same ferocity the Yanqi defends his right to arm himself to the teeth. You prise my spanners from my cold dead hand.

You can't get properly powerful elements for your grill any more. My toast takes ages and it's never crisp enough any more.

[Herbert Augustus Chapman]

'deeply conformist little fùckpig'

That's my favourite part of that rant. :hehe:

I haven't seen Burney rant like that since Jorge ran away.

Ganp isn't running away though. I think he has rather seized the higher moral and intellectual ground here by responding in his usual measured style. I await b's response keenly :-)

[WES]

Ganp isn't running away though. I think he has rather seized the higher moral and intellectual ground here by responding in his usual measured style. I await b's response keenly :-)

Yes, I thought that as well. The moral high ground is valuable property which should be ceded with reservation.

I have Ganpati ahead by a nose but have confidence in Burney's ability to close. Should be fun. :rubshands:

[Sir C]

Have you had dealings with her or know of someone who has so can attest to this niceness? I know a public persona is not the best evidence to go on but she has always struck me as slightly sinister. I think it's her serpentine and menacing delivery. And the way she lost no time attacking that old Tory bird for using the profoundly offensive word 'colour'.

What we know of her for sure is that she was prepared to fúck Jeremy Corbyn. :-(

[Herbert Augustus Chapman]

You can't get properly powerful elements for your grill any more. My toast takes ages and it's never crisp enough any more.

Is that what it is! Those scrawny, bespectacled soft handed Euro****ing insects in Brussels have basically outlawed anything that is effective

[Ash]

Um, that sounds like our democracy. If by 'rubber-stamp' you mean 'vote on'. And UK citizens being ambivalent to European elections does not make them any less democratic.

I think I understand the situation now, many thanks.

If we don't like our executive we can vote it out. If you want to see how undemocratic the Commission is, see how they have ignored or overturned numerous referendums around Europe when people voted the 'wrong' way. France, Netherlands, Greece and Ireland have all had popular votes overturned or made to vote again until they get it right. Sound familiar?

Italy wasn't allowed to set its own Keynesian budget after the people had voted for a left-right coalition opposed to austerity policies.

[Ash]

Is that what it is! Those scrawny, bespectacled soft handed Euro****ing insects in Brussels have basically outlawed anything that is effective

Don't start me on light bulbs, Herbs.

[IUFG]

Don't start me on light bulbs, Herbs.

What about the light bulbs,a?


: pokesbearwithstick:

[Herbert Augustus Chapman]

Yes, I thought that as well. The moral high ground is valuable property which should be ceded with reservation.

I have Ganpati ahead by a nose but have confidence in Burney's ability to close. Should be fun. :rubshands:

Berni cannot respond now with more of his characteristic vitriol. That particular part of his arsenal is spent so he must attempt reason and measure, neither being his forte. I think he'll find ganp rather like some mythological Indian creature that is frustratingly impervious to vituperative.

I'll wager he's already composed a couple of responses but crumpled them up and tossed them in the bin :-D

[Herbert Augustus Chapman]

Don't start me on light bulbs, Herbs.

Are you talking about the fact that the ****ing things don't actually enable you to, you know, see anything anymore? Boils my píss right proper and now I know the Euro****warblers are behind it I'm even angrier.

[IUFG]

Are you talking about the fact that the ****ing things don't actually enable you to, you know, see anything anymore? Boils my píss right proper and now I know the Euro****warblers are behind it I'm even angrier.

what about piss weak vacuum cleaners or cars that are 'too noisy', H?

[Herbert Augustus Chapman]

what about piss weak vacuum cleaners or cars that are 'too noisy', H?

Tell me abaah't it! I bought one of those poxy Henry contraptions,. I had my dick sucked harder by your mum!

[IUFG]

Tell me abaah't it! I bought one of those poxy Henry contraptions,. I had my dick sucked harder by your mum!

So. You went for Henry and not Hetty, eh?
:sherlock:

[Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult]

So there we have it. You support the EU because you openly despise democracy and wish to be ruled by technocrats and giant capitalist corporations.

Yet you hang around with yellow vests, boast of decades of selfish nihilism and pretend to be a rebel.

Why would anyone take you seriously?

Where did I say I want to be ruled by giant corporations? One of the things I like most about the EU is the fact that they are prepared to break up monopolies and fine companies that transgress.

The only hope we have of dealing with multi-national tax scams and the abuses of the US tech giants is through the EU.

Believe it or not, while I'm aware of the EU's many imperfections, I actually think it can be a force for good in this world.

In the future, in an increasingly globalised world, there will only be 3 rule makers. The Chinks, the Septics and the EU. And only the EU will be prepared to hold the tech giants to account.

But yes, I would rather be ruled by accountable technocrats that the semi-literate self-serving ****wits that make up much of our political class. Would you rather the country was run by the front bench of either main party or our top civil servants?

We have a NI sec who doesn't understand how people vote there, a Brexit sec who didn't know a lot of our trade goes through Dover and Dianne Abacus. Give me the CS high flyers any day.

Though out of interest, if I give my own time and money to help throw a party that tens of thousands then enjoy for free, just how am I being selfish and nihilistic? Surely that would be the dictionary definitions of selfless and creative?

[WES]

If we don't like our executive we can vote it out. If you want to see how undemocratic the Commission is, see how they have ignored or overturned numerous referendums around Europe when people voted the 'wrong' way. France, Netherlands, Greece and Ireland have all had popular votes overturned or made to vote again until they get it right. Sound familiar?

Italy wasn't allowed to set its own Keynesian budget after the people had voted for a left-right coalition opposed to austerity policies.

Well, yes, but that’s because EU countries are part of a larger democracy, one which they signed up to. In the same way that counties in England are part of a larger democracy. My county votes to Remain but we’re leaving, does that mean that Surrey doesn’t have democracy?

As I said, I understand the point of view - from both sides.

[Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult]

If we don't like our executive we can vote it out. If you want to see how undemocratic the Commission is, see how they have ignored or overturned numerous referendums around Europe when people voted the 'wrong' way. France, Netherlands, Greece and Ireland have all had popular votes overturned or made to vote again until they get it right. Sound familiar?

Italy wasn't allowed to set its own Keynesian budget after the people had voted for a left-right coalition opposed to austerity policies.

It's not fair to conflate the Eurozone with the EU.

For all the idiocy of a monetary union without a fiscal union, and the hypocrisy of allowing Fr and Ger to break the budget limit but not Italy, they chose to be in the EZ and have to obey the rules. They can leave if they don't like it. And we all know why they won't.

That doesn't apply to us as EU but non EZ members.

Why it's wrong for the EU to make people vote again 'till they get it right, but fine for May to keep asking Parl to do likewise, I've no idea.

But the point is that on every occassion that EU states voted again, the proposition was supported by their democratically elected national govts, and often the opposition too.

The trouble stems from the fact that most people don't take Europe seriously enough and will therefore use an EU vote to stick two fingers up to the establishment. {Remember when the Greens won 15% here in the late '80s?}

So you often had a case of the public rejecting the vote of a way of sending a message o their rulers (much like Brexit was a protest against austerity andimmigration).

The govt of whichever country would say "Ok, we get it. But look, this deal really is in all our interests. That's why most main parties in most main countries support it. So look, we'll listen to you about the domestic issues that prompted your protest vote but please vote again, cos we don't want to appear the country holding everyone back, do we?"

I accept it's a horrible look. And I wish it hadn't happened as the biggest argument against the 2nd vote I desire is that it looks like the EU telling us to keep voting 'till we get it right. {A la May.}

The EU is far from perfect and maybe Brexit and the coming MEP votes might wake them up a bit. But I would still rather be in the club helping reform it than stuck in an economically destructive limbo with no unilateral escape mechanism, ending up a rule taker with no say in their making.

With the rebate and opt-outs we had the best of both worlds.

[Ash]

Well, yes, but that’s because EU countries are part of a larger democracy, one which they signed up to. In the same way that counties in England are part of a larger democracy. My county votes to Remain but we’re leaving, does that mean that Surrey doesn’t have democracy?

As I said, I understand the point of view - from both sides.

No, the popular votes that went against the EU were overturned by the executive, not by elected representatives. Your county is not a political entity, but if you mean your constituency then it's a straw man anyway. When unelected commissioners over-rule referendum results that is pretty much as undemocratic as it gets, and no amount of sophistry will change that. :thumbup:

[Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult]

Well, yes, but that’s because EU countries are part of a larger democracy, one which they signed up to. In the same way that counties in England are part of a larger democracy. My county votes to Remain but we’re leaving, does that mean that Surrey doesn’t have democracy?

As I said, I understand the point of view - from both sides.

It's almost like people completely understand the need to pool sovereignty up to and including the nation state level, but simply can't get their heads around anything beyond that.

I'll be honest - until the last 2-3 years, I never understood how important national identity was for so many people. {Don't get me wrong, I love being an Englishman abroad, but I'll mock my own nation's failings mercilessly.}

But I've also studied enough history to know that the EU allowed our nation to punch far above our weight, so I would have thought the more nationalist types would approve. How wrong I was.

[Ash]

Where did I say I want to be ruled by giant corporations? One of the things I like most about the EU is the fact that they are prepared to break up monopolies and fine companies that transgress.

When you said you were a globalist. :shrug: One follows the other like night follows day. Globalism is a paradise for predatory capital, seeking the lowest costs anywhere in the world. For workers, this means a race for the bottom, where the person that will do the job for the lowest wage, for the longest hours, and in the worst conditions .... "wins". :-|



But yes, I would rather be ruled by accountable technocrats that the semi-literate self-serving ****wits that make up much of our political class. Would you rather the country was run by the front bench of either main party or our top civil servants?


Civil servants, aka the permanent government, cannot be accountable unless you elect them. I'd like to see both parties blown up (not literally) and replaced by parties representing the new divide - globalist technocracy v democratic sovereignty.

[Ash]

It's not fair to conflate the Eurozone with the EU.

For all the idiocy of a monetary union without a fiscal union, and the hypocrisy of allowing Fr and Ger to break the budget limit but not Italy, they chose to be in the EZ and have to obey the rules. They can leave if they don't like it. And we all know why they won't.

That doesn't apply to us as EU but non EZ members.

Why it's wrong for the EU to make people vote again 'till they get it right, but fine for May to keep asking Parl to do likewise, I've no idea.

But the point is that on every occassion that EU states voted again, the proposition was supported by their democratically elected national govts, and often the opposition too.

The trouble stems from the fact that most people don't take Europe seriously enough and will therefore use an EU vote to stick two fingers up to the establishment. {Remember when the Greens won 15% here in the late '80s?}

So you often had a case of the public rejecting the vote of a way of sending a message o their rulers (much like Brexit was a protest against austerity andimmigration).

The govt of whichever country would say "Ok, we get it. But look, this deal really is in all our interests. That's why most main parties in most main countries support it. So look, we'll listen to you about the domestic issues that prompted your protest vote but please vote again, cos we don't want to appear the country holding everyone back, do we?"

I accept it's a horrible look. And I wish it hadn't happened as the biggest argument against the 2nd vote I desire is that it looks like the EU telling us to keep voting 'till we get it right. {A la May.}

The EU is far from perfect and maybe Brexit and the coming MEP votes might wake them up a bit. But I would still rather be in the club helping reform it than stuck in an economically destructive limbo with no unilateral escape mechanism, ending up a rule taker with no say in their making.

With the rebate and opt-outs we had the best of both worlds.

Just because some EU members are not in the EZ doesn't make the EZ irrelevant to the EU. It is intrinsic to the trajectory of the project. When a country cannot set its interest rates or float its currency it cannot adapt to the market and will suffer. Therefore the EZ, a core aspect of the EU has failed. You know this, I believe.

Where did I say it was fine for May to keep taking her bill back? You've put the cart before the horse by saying that a second referendum makes the EU look like May. Other way round, chronologically. The fact that national governments regularly support the EU over the wishes of their own people points to the corruption and failure to represent of the political class as a whole. This will change.

The ruling elite will never reform unless they are forced.

[Sir C]

Just because some EU members are not in the EZ doesn't make the EZ irrelevant to the EU. It is intrinsic to the trajectory of the project. When a country cannot set its interest rates or float its currency it cannot adapt to the market and will suffer. Therefore the EZ, a core aspect of the EU has failed. You know this, I believe.

Where did I say it was fine for May to keep taking her bill back? You've put the cart before the horse by saying that a second referendum makes the EU look like May. Other way round, chronologically. The fact that national governments regularly support the EU over the wishes of their own people points to the corruption and failure to represent of the political class as a whole. This will change.

The ruling elite will never reform unless they are forced.

Sadly the demos remains stubbornly bovine.

What we need is a bloody revolution. What we will get is a few outraged healines in the Daily Mail.

[Ash]

It's almost like people completely understand the need to pool sovereignty up to and including the nation state level, but simply can't get their heads around anything beyond that.

I'll be honest - until the last 2-3 years, I never understood how important national identity was for so many people. {Don't get me wrong, I love being an Englishman abroad, but I'll mock my own nation's failings mercilessly.}

But I've also studied enough history to know that the EU allowed our nation to punch far above our weight, so I would have thought the more nationalist types would approve. How wrong I was.

The further up the sovereignty is pooled, the more remote power is. The nation-state is the best unit of sovereignty currently available imo, and recognising this does not make one a national chauvinist. It is recognising a shared culture, language and geography, but shouldn't consider that superior to other nations.

[Herbert Augustus Chapman]

globalist technocracy v democratic sovereignty.

Will you and Berni shut the fúck with the technocracy or at least define what one is .. I thang ya

[Ash]

Will you and Berni shut the fúck with the technocracy or at least define what one is .. I thang ya

Rule by 'expert'.

http://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net/villains/images/7/78/Sir_Humphrey_Appleby.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20140217201609

[Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult]

When you said you were a globalist. :shrug: One follows the other like night follows day. Globalism is a paradise for predatory capital, seeking the lowest costs anywhere in the world. For workers, this means a race for the bottom, where the person that will do the job for the lowest wage, for the longest hours, and in the worst conditions .... "wins". :-|



Civil servants, aka the permanent government, cannot be accountable unless you elect them. I'd like to see both parties blown up (not literally) and replaced by parties representing the new divide - globalist technocracy v democratic sovereignty.

When I said I'm a globalist I meant that I consider us all human beings and want us to live as one united people. I intended no implication about the nature of the capitalist system in a globalised world.

I just want us all to live together peacefully. Nationalism is therefore the antithesis of my beliefs.

You could have them acountable to various committees. I'm not gonna get into practical policy proposals. It was more a humourous thought experiment based on the fact that the autocratic Tibet-invading scum have done better than my democratic lads in the last 25 years and the fact that both front benches in the UK are full of donkeys.

[Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult]

Just because some EU members are not in the EZ doesn't make the EZ irrelevant to the EU. It is intrinsic to the trajectory of the project. When a country cannot set its interest rates or float its currency it cannot adapt to the market and will suffer. Therefore the EZ, a core aspect of the EU has failed. You know this, I believe.

Where did I say it was fine for May to keep taking her bill back? You've put the cart before the horse by saying that a second referendum makes the EU look like May. Other way round, chronologically. The fact that national governments regularly support the EU over the wishes of their own people points to the corruption and failure to represent of the political class as a whole. This will change.

The ruling elite will never reform unless they are forced.

But they always do this with the support of the democratically elected domestic govt of the country being forced to vote again.

I don't like it, and it's far from perfect. But like the UK parliament in the C18th, it's heading in the right direction.

I'm sure it will get there eventually, and will do so quicker and more easily with UK involvement.

The EZ will have to change. I don't know in which direction, but it isn't my problem. I was happy with us outside the EZ, outside Schengen and with a rebate.

I also think it will be much easier in the coming decade. The continent won't be dominated by Merkell trying to atone for past crimes. The new leader will have to watch her right flank for the AfD. The rise of populism will keep the federalists in check.

In short, that fückwitted cünt Cameron called the vote at precisely the wrong time - after a banking collapse saw the bankers get off scott free and the public hit with years of austerity, and with Merkel acting like the Holy Roman Emperor and calling every swarthy type near the Med to come and live among us.

If he'd held his nerve for a decade, then things would have gradually come to refrom in our direction during the 2020s.

Though obviously, all the above is just my supposition and has no inherent validity. And, barring some heroic 2nd vote, it will all be hypothetical.

[Ash]

When I said I'm a globalist I meant that I consider us all human beings and want us to live as one united people. I intended no implication about the nature of the capitalist system in a globalised world.

I just want us all to live together peacefully. Nationalism is therefore the antithesis of my beliefs.


I'm all for peace too, and I've no truck with those who blather about "frogs" and "wops". How can we be united though with people who have opposing values. Better to draw a line in the sand and say for example "ok, on this side we do it our way, and on that side you do it yours.



You could have them acountable to various committees. I'm not gonna get into practical policy proposals. It was more a humourous thought experiment based on the fact that the autocratic Tibet-invading scum have done better than my democratic lads in the last 25 years and the fact that both front benches in the UK are full of donkeys.

I see, and who are the the committees accountable to? More committees? All the way up the supreme emperor?

As a wise man once said (paraphrasing) "If you have power there are three questions I have for you. How did you get it? In whose interests do you wield it? and How do we get rid of you?"

There's a word for a supra-national entity with little or no democracy: Empire. The same wise man also said "As a government minister being summoned to Brussels was like being dragged to Rome in chains".

[AFC East]

Horseshít. By abdicating responsibility for vast swathes of our legislative processes to an unelected foreign bureaucracy, we have degraded the quality and ability of our parliamentarians to the point where they are unable to legislate effectively, display a truly pathetic grasp of policy detail and have lost all respect for their offices and for their democratic responsibilities, traditions, precedents and duties.

Parliament has, by inches, been separated from the people to such an extent that there is now a vast and unbridgeable gulf between them. We consequently have parliamentarians whose first loyalty is not to this country but to Brussels and a speaker who has now chosen to breach the single most important aspect of his role - impartiality - in order to aid the cause of a hostile foreign power against an elected and Royally-appointed government.

And this is not a Tory problem. This is a democracy problem - a voter problem. The fact that people can spout the former without realising the latter is rather at the heart of the matter.

The distortion field is strong in this one.

[Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult]

I'm all for peace too, and I've no truck with those who blather about "frogs" and "wops". How can we be united though with people who have opposing values. Better to draw a line in the sand and say for example "ok, on this side we do it our way, and on that side you do it yours.



I see, and who are the the committees accountable to? More committees? All the way up the supreme emperor?

As a wise man once said (paraphrasing) "If you have power there are three questions I have for you. How did you get it? In whose interests do you wield it? and How do we get rid of you?"

There's a word for a supra-national entity with little or no democracy: Empire. The same wise man also said "As a government minister being summoned to Brussels was like being dragged to Rome in chains".

Just to reiterate, I have no answers. I'm a historian who doesn't have to worry about the real world too much, so it's mostly just a thought experiment looking in units of centuries.

But I do know, that just like most people will have coffee coloured skin in a millennium, and many will speak English to a converstational level*, the C19th concept of a modern nation state will give way to continental blocs and eventually, assuming we don't destroy our species, global govt with subsidiarity.

And as such, the EU is a step towards the future and Brexit is retrograde.

This is why I support it, not because it means I can doss round Europe more. When I said globalist, it meant I looked at a species, not national level. And this integration during the next millennium will be the best thing that has ever happened to humanity.

In 25 years, I've seen several hundred million Indians move from what we'd have considered penury to a comfortable, consumerist, middle class life.

And we need continental (i.e. EU etc) blocs to stop the tech giants and other monoploy capitalists taking the pîss. And eventually global govt to stop tax havens.

"This world was made a common treasury for everyone to share."

*The difference in the numbers of yoots wot speak English in France now compared to 25 years ago. Half the signs are in Franglais or pure English, all the tech terms are English. Half the internet is in English and many of the youtube vids the kids watch are too.

As such, we're creating a global culture. Give it a century and you'll see the west having an overarching intl culture.

And then your ghost will remember that rock and roll music was the start, but Teknivals was the first in Europe where our music could be understood by all nationalities.

[Alberto Balsam Rodriguez]

Horseshít. By abdicating responsibility for vast swathes of our legislative processes to an unelected foreign bureaucracy, we have degraded the quality and ability of our parliamentarians to the point where they are unable to legislate effectively, display a truly pathetic grasp of policy detail and have lost all respect for their offices and for their democratic responsibilities, traditions, precedents and duties.

Parliament has, by inches, been separated from the people to such an extent that there is now a vast and unbridgeable gulf between them. We consequently have parliamentarians whose first loyalty is not to this country but to Brussels and a speaker who has now chosen to breach the single most important aspect of his role - impartiality - in order to aid the cause of a hostile foreign power against an elected and Royally-appointed government.

And this is not a Tory problem. This is a democracy problem - a voter problem. The fact that people can spout the former without realising the latter is rather at the heart of the matter.


Well, you haven't lost your sense of humour, b.

[redgunamo]

With this sort, it's nothing to do with being taken seriously; it's enough that you take them at all, give them and their thoughts the time of day. For them, that's a huge win.

I don't suppose you've had too much experience of this but, no; they're like children or neglected, ignored hounds. They will do and say whatever gets them attention. And it makes no difference whether it's good attention or bad. The attention itself is all that mattress. #DaddyIssues




So there we have it. You support the EU because you openly despise democracy and wish to be ruled by technocrats and giant capitalist corporations.

Yet you hang around with yellow vests, boast of decades of selfish nihilism and pretend to be a rebel.

Why would anyone take you seriously?

[WES]

No, the popular votes that went against the EU were overturned by the executive, not by elected representatives. Your county is not a political entity, but if you mean your constituency then it's a straw man anyway. When unelected commissioners over-rule referendum results that is pretty much as undemocratic as it gets, and no amount of sophistry will change that. :thumbup:

I'd have to understand the specifics of how the executive overturned the popular votes; I'm willing to bet it is more complicated then you are suggesting.

BTW, the article below suggests that your portrayal of the lack of democracy within the EU is superficial, and with all due respect mate, I'm inclined to believe the chap who wrote it. It has never made sense to me that the EU countries would accept an EU that was as undemocratic as you and Burney portray it to be, and the article below makes it clear that it is not.

A popular claim by many supporters of the Leave campaign is that the EU is run by ‘unelected bureaucrats’. How much truth is there behind that claim?

This claim mainly refers to the EU Commission: the EU’s executive body. It is true that the Commission President and the individual Commissioners are not directly elected by the peoples of Europe. So, in that sense, we cannot “throw the scoundrels out”. It is also true that under the provisions of the EU treaty, the Commission has the sole right to propose EU legislation, which, if passed, is then binding on all the EU member states and the citizens of these member states.

But, that’s not the end of the story. First, the Commission’s power to propose legislation is much weaker than it at first seems. The Commission can only propose laws in those areas where the EU governments have unanimously agreed to allow it to do under the EU treaty. Put another way, the Commission can only propose EU laws in areas where the UK government and the House of Commons has allowed it to do so.


Jean-Claude Juncker. Credits: Friends of Europe.

Also, ‘proposing’ is not the same as ‘deciding’. A Commission proposal only becomes law if it is approved by both a qualified-majority in the EU Council (unanimity in many sensitive areas) and a simple majority in the European Parliament. In practice this means that after the amendments adopted by the governments and the MEPs, the legislation usually looks very different to what the Commission originally proposed. In this sense, the Commission is much weaker than it was in the 1980s, when it was harder to amend its proposals in the Council and when the European Parliament did not have amendment and veto power.

Part of the misunderstanding about the power of the Commission perhaps stems from a comparison with the British system of government. Unlike the British government, which commands a majority in the House of Commons, the Commission does not command an in-built majority in the EU Council or the European Parliament, and so has to build a coalition issue-by-issue. This puts the Commission in a much weaker position in the EU system than the British government in the UK system.

Second, the Commission President and the Commissioners are indirectly elected. Under Article 17 of the EU treaty, as amended by the Lisbon Treaty, the Commission President is formally proposed by the European Council (the 28 heads of government of the EU member states), by a qualified-majority vote, and is then ‘elected’ by a majority vote in the European Parliament. In an effort to inject a bit more democracy into this process, the main European party families proposed rival candidates for the Commission President before the 2014 European Parliament elections. Then, after the centre-right European People’s Party (EPP) won the most seats in the new Parliament, the European Council agreed to propose the EPP’s candidate: Jean-Claude Juncker.

The problem in Britain, though, is that this new way of ‘electing’ the Commission President did not feel very democratic. None of the main British parties are in the EPP (the Conservatives left the EPP in 2009), and so British voters were not able to vote for Juncker (although they could vote against him). There was also very little media coverage in the UK of the campaigns between the various candidates for the Commission President, so few British people understand how the process worked (unlike in some other member states). But, we can hardly blame the EU for the Conservatives leaving the EPP or for our media failing to cover the Commission President election campaign!

Then, once the Commission President is chosen, each EU member state nominates a Commissioner, and each Commissioner is then subject to a hearing in one of the committees of the European Parliament (modelled on US Senate hearings of US Presidential nominees to the US cabinet). If a committee issues a ‘negative opinion’ the candidate is usually withdrawn by the government concerned. After the hearings, the team of 28 is then subject to an up/down ‘investiture vote’ by a simple majority of the MEPs.

Finally, once invested, the Commission as a whole can be removed by a two-thirds ‘censure vote’ in the European Parliament. This has never happened before, but in 1999 the Santer Commission resigned before a censure vote was due to be taken which they were likely to lose. So, yes, the Commission is not directly elected. But it is not strictly true to say that it is ‘unelected’ or unaccountable.

And, in many ways, the way the Commission is now chosen is similar to the way the UK government is formed. Neither the British Prime Minister nor the British cabinet are ‘directly elected’. Formally, in House of Commons elections, we do not vote on the choice for the Prime Minister, but rather vote for individual MPs from different parties. Then, by convention, the Queen chooses the leader of the largest party in the House of Commons to form a government. This is rather like the European Council choosing the candidate of the political group with the most seats in the European Parliament to become the Commission President.

Then, after the Prime Minister is chosen, he or she is free to choose his or her cabinet ministers. There are no hearings of individual ministerial nominees before committees of the House of Commons, and there is no formal investiture vote in the government as a whole. From this perspective, the Commissioners and the Commission are more scrutinised and more accountable than British cabinet ministers.

So, it is easy to claim that the EU is run by ‘unelected bureaucrats’, but the reality is quite a long way from that. Although, having said that, I would be one of the first to acknowledge that the EU does not feel as democratic as it could or should be – as I have spent much of my academic career writing about this issue. But, this is perhaps more to do with the stage of development of the EU than because of the procedures that are now in place for choosing and removing the Commission, which are far more ‘democratic’ than they were 5 or 10 years ago.

[Burney]

I'd have to understand the specifics of how the executive overturned the popular votes; I'm willing to bet it is more complicated then you are suggesting.

BTW, the article below suggests that your portrayal of the lack of democracy within the EU is superficial, and with all due respect mate, I'm inclined to believe the chap who wrote it. It has never made sense to me that the EU countries would accept an EU that was as undemocratic as you and Burney portray it to be, and the article below makes it clear that it is not.

A popular claim by many supporters of the Leave campaign is that the EU is run by ‘unelected bureaucrats’. How much truth is there behind that claim?

This claim mainly refers to the EU Commission: the EU’s executive body. It is true that the Commission President and the individual Commissioners are not directly elected by the peoples of Europe. So, in that sense, we cannot “throw the scoundrels out”. It is also true that under the provisions of the EU treaty, the Commission has the sole right to propose EU legislation, which, if passed, is then binding on all the EU member states and the citizens of these member states.

But, that’s not the end of the story. First, the Commission’s power to propose legislation is much weaker than it at first seems. The Commission can only propose laws in those areas where the EU governments have unanimously agreed to allow it to do under the EU treaty. Put another way, the Commission can only propose EU laws in areas where the UK government and the House of Commons has allowed it to do so.


Jean-Claude Juncker. Credits: Friends of Europe.

Also, ‘proposing’ is not the same as ‘deciding’. A Commission proposal only becomes law if it is approved by both a qualified-majority in the EU Council (unanimity in many sensitive areas) and a simple majority in the European Parliament. In practice this means that after the amendments adopted by the governments and the MEPs, the legislation usually looks very different to what the Commission originally proposed. In this sense, the Commission is much weaker than it was in the 1980s, when it was harder to amend its proposals in the Council and when the European Parliament did not have amendment and veto power.

Part of the misunderstanding about the power of the Commission perhaps stems from a comparison with the British system of government. Unlike the British government, which commands a majority in the House of Commons, the Commission does not command an in-built majority in the EU Council or the European Parliament, and so has to build a coalition issue-by-issue. This puts the Commission in a much weaker position in the EU system than the British government in the UK system.

Second, the Commission President and the Commissioners are indirectly elected. Under Article 17 of the EU treaty, as amended by the Lisbon Treaty, the Commission President is formally proposed by the European Council (the 28 heads of government of the EU member states), by a qualified-majority vote, and is then ‘elected’ by a majority vote in the European Parliament. In an effort to inject a bit more democracy into this process, the main European party families proposed rival candidates for the Commission President before the 2014 European Parliament elections. Then, after the centre-right European People’s Party (EPP) won the most seats in the new Parliament, the European Council agreed to propose the EPP’s candidate: Jean-Claude Juncker.

The problem in Britain, though, is that this new way of ‘electing’ the Commission President did not feel very democratic. None of the main British parties are in the EPP (the Conservatives left the EPP in 2009), and so British voters were not able to vote for Juncker (although they could vote against him). There was also very little media coverage in the UK of the campaigns between the various candidates for the Commission President, so few British people understand how the process worked (unlike in some other member states). But, we can hardly blame the EU for the Conservatives leaving the EPP or for our media failing to cover the Commission President election campaign!

Then, once the Commission President is chosen, each EU member state nominates a Commissioner, and each Commissioner is then subject to a hearing in one of the committees of the European Parliament (modelled on US Senate hearings of US Presidential nominees to the US cabinet). If a committee issues a ‘negative opinion’ the candidate is usually withdrawn by the government concerned. After the hearings, the team of 28 is then subject to an up/down ‘investiture vote’ by a simple majority of the MEPs.

Finally, once invested, the Commission as a whole can be removed by a two-thirds ‘censure vote’ in the European Parliament. This has never happened before, but in 1999 the Santer Commission resigned before a censure vote was due to be taken which they were likely to lose. So, yes, the Commission is not directly elected. But it is not strictly true to say that it is ‘unelected’ or unaccountable.

And, in many ways, the way the Commission is now chosen is similar to the way the UK government is formed. Neither the British Prime Minister nor the British cabinet are ‘directly elected’. Formally, in House of Commons elections, we do not vote on the choice for the Prime Minister, but rather vote for individual MPs from different parties. Then, by convention, the Queen chooses the leader of the largest party in the House of Commons to form a government. This is rather like the European Council choosing the candidate of the political group with the most seats in the European Parliament to become the Commission President.

Then, after the Prime Minister is chosen, he or she is free to choose his or her cabinet ministers. There are no hearings of individual ministerial nominees before committees of the House of Commons, and there is no formal investiture vote in the government as a whole. From this perspective, the Commissioners and the Commission are more scrutinised and more accountable than British cabinet ministers.

So, it is easy to claim that the EU is run by ‘unelected bureaucrats’, but the reality is quite a long way from that. Although, having said that, I would be one of the first to acknowledge that the EU does not feel as democratic as it could or should be – as I have spent much of my academic career writing about this issue. But, this is perhaps more to do with the stage of development of the EU than because of the procedures that are now in place for choosing and removing the Commission, which are far more ‘democratic’ than they were 5 or 10 years ago.

Hmmm. Oh, yes, I'd definitely trust - *checks notes* - 'Friends of Europe' - very impartial. :hehe:

It's a classic piece of sophistry whose sole intent is to obscure the truth.
For starters, the premises of the piece are absurdly flawed. For instance, it's laughable to compare a government that has won an election (and thus has a direct democratic mandate) and a patronage-appointed Commission that has no democratic mandate whatsoever. The issue therefore is not that the Commission has less power than an elected national government, but that it has any power at all!

The Commission's very existence is an offence to any democrat's sensibilities. It is the sole body that is capable of proposing legislation. That gives it pretty much complete power over the legislative agenda of the EU with no democratic mandate whatsoever. No amount of quasi-democratic window dressing can obscure that stark fact.

Secondly, the nonsense about the cabinet and PM not being directly elected wilfully ignores that they are all elected in a national election in which the electorate voted largely by party and in response to clear manifestos. None of that is the case with the Commission, which is an appointment with zero democratic legitimacy.

All in all, that article is nothing but an example of how dishonest the proponents of the EU are prepared to be in defence of the indefensible and how willing others are to lie to themselves that their self-interest in maintaining the status quo has any higher justification.

[redgunamo]

Yes. To be honest, I'd be rather more inclined to believe A & B on this topic. At least, I don't think either of them were at LSE.



I'd have to understand the specifics of how the executive overturned the popular votes; I'm willing to bet it is more complicated then you are suggesting.

BTW, the article below suggests that your portrayal of the lack of democracy within the EU is superficial, and with all due respect mate, I'm inclined to believe the chap who wrote it. It has never made sense to me that the EU countries would accept an EU that was as undemocratic as you and Burney portray it to be, and the article below makes it clear that it is not.

A popular claim by many supporters of the Leave campaign is that the EU is run by ‘unelected bureaucrats’. How much truth is there behind that claim?

This claim mainly refers to the EU Commission: the EU’s executive body. It is true that the Commission President and the individual Commissioners are not directly elected by the peoples of Europe. So, in that sense, we cannot “throw the scoundrels out”. It is also true that under the provisions of the EU treaty, the Commission has the sole right to propose EU legislation, which, if passed, is then binding on all the EU member states and the citizens of these member states.

But, that’s not the end of the story. First, the Commission’s power to propose legislation is much weaker than it at first seems. The Commission can only propose laws in those areas where the EU governments have unanimously agreed to allow it to do under the EU treaty. Put another way, the Commission can only propose EU laws in areas where the UK government and the House of Commons has allowed it to do so.


Jean-Claude Juncker. Credits: Friends of Europe.

Also, ‘proposing’ is not the same as ‘deciding’. A Commission proposal only becomes law if it is approved by both a qualified-majority in the EU Council (unanimity in many sensitive areas) and a simple majority in the European Parliament. In practice this means that after the amendments adopted by the governments and the MEPs, the legislation usually looks very different to what the Commission originally proposed. In this sense, the Commission is much weaker than it was in the 1980s, when it was harder to amend its proposals in the Council and when the European Parliament did not have amendment and veto power.

Part of the misunderstanding about the power of the Commission perhaps stems from a comparison with the British system of government. Unlike the British government, which commands a majority in the House of Commons, the Commission does not command an in-built majority in the EU Council or the European Parliament, and so has to build a coalition issue-by-issue. This puts the Commission in a much weaker position in the EU system than the British government in the UK system.

Second, the Commission President and the Commissioners are indirectly elected. Under Article 17 of the EU treaty, as amended by the Lisbon Treaty, the Commission President is formally proposed by the European Council (the 28 heads of government of the EU member states), by a qualified-majority vote, and is then ‘elected’ by a majority vote in the European Parliament. In an effort to inject a bit more democracy into this process, the main European party families proposed rival candidates for the Commission President before the 2014 European Parliament elections. Then, after the centre-right European People’s Party (EPP) won the most seats in the new Parliament, the European Council agreed to propose the EPP’s candidate: Jean-Claude Juncker.

The problem in Britain, though, is that this new way of ‘electing’ the Commission President did not feel very democratic. None of the main British parties are in the EPP (the Conservatives left the EPP in 2009), and so British voters were not able to vote for Juncker (although they could vote against him). There was also very little media coverage in the UK of the campaigns between the various candidates for the Commission President, so few British people understand how the process worked (unlike in some other member states). But, we can hardly blame the EU for the Conservatives leaving the EPP or for our media failing to cover the Commission President election campaign!

Then, once the Commission President is chosen, each EU member state nominates a Commissioner, and each Commissioner is then subject to a hearing in one of the committees of the European Parliament (modelled on US Senate hearings of US Presidential nominees to the US cabinet). If a committee issues a ‘negative opinion’ the candidate is usually withdrawn by the government concerned. After the hearings, the team of 28 is then subject to an up/down ‘investiture vote’ by a simple majority of the MEPs.

Finally, once invested, the Commission as a whole can be removed by a two-thirds ‘censure vote’ in the European Parliament. This has never happened before, but in 1999 the Santer Commission resigned before a censure vote was due to be taken which they were likely to lose. So, yes, the Commission is not directly elected. But it is not strictly true to say that it is ‘unelected’ or unaccountable.

And, in many ways, the way the Commission is now chosen is similar to the way the UK government is formed. Neither the British Prime Minister nor the British cabinet are ‘directly elected’. Formally, in House of Commons elections, we do not vote on the choice for the Prime Minister, but rather vote for individual MPs from different parties. Then, by convention, the Queen chooses the leader of the largest party in the House of Commons to form a government. This is rather like the European Council choosing the candidate of the political group with the most seats in the European Parliament to become the Commission President.

Then, after the Prime Minister is chosen, he or she is free to choose his or her cabinet ministers. There are no hearings of individual ministerial nominees before committees of the House of Commons, and there is no formal investiture vote in the government as a whole. From this perspective, the Commissioners and the Commission are more scrutinised and more accountable than British cabinet ministers.

So, it is easy to claim that the EU is run by ‘unelected bureaucrats’, but the reality is quite a long way from that. Although, having said that, I would be one of the first to acknowledge that the EU does not feel as democratic as it could or should be – as I have spent much of my academic career writing about this issue. But, this is perhaps more to do with the stage of development of the EU than because of the procedures that are now in place for choosing and removing the Commission, which are far more ‘democratic’ than they were 5 or 10 years ago.

[WES]

Hmmm. Oh, yes, I'd definitely trust - *checks notes* - 'Friends of Europe' - very impartial. :hehe:

It's a classic piece of sophistry whose sole intent is to obscure the truth.
For starters, the premises of the piece are absurdly flawed. For instance, it's laughable to compare a government that has won an election (and thus has a direct democratic mandate) and a patronage-appointed Commission that has no democratic mandate whatsoever. The issue therefore is not that the Commission has less power than an elected national government, but that it has any power at all!

The Commission's very existence is an offence to any democrat's sensibilities. It is the sole body that is capable of proposing legislation. That gives it pretty much complete power over the legislative agenda of the EU with no democratic mandate whatsoever. No amount of quasi-democratic window dressing can obscure that stark fact.

Secondly, the nonsense about the cabinet and PM not being directly elected wilfully ignores that they are all elected in a national election in which the electorate voted largely by party and in response to clear manifestos. None of that is the case with the Commission, which is an appointment with zero democratic legitimacy.

All in all, that article is nothing but an example of how dishonest the proponents of the EU are prepared to be in defence of the indefensible and how willing others are to lie to themselves that their self-interest in maintaining the status quo has any higher justification.

Ad hominem

And you have refuted very little of the article including some points that directly contradict the 'undemocratic' view. As an example:

'The Commission can only propose laws in those areas where the EU governments have unanimously agreed to allow it to do under the EU treaty. Put another way, the Commission can only propose EU laws in areas where the UK government and the House of Commons has allowed it to do so.'

[Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult]

Yes. To be honest, I'd be rather more inclined to believe A & B on this topic. At least, I don't think either of them were at LSE.

I was. B.Sc (econ) in Monetary Economics.

Have you any idea how tedious it is explaining to Corbynistas that they don't have the first ****ing clue about economics and that by definition, they guy who introduced the minimum wage can't be described as a "neo-liberal."

[IUFG]

I was. B.Sc (econ) in Monetary Economics.

Have you any idea how tedious it is explaining to Corbynistas that they don't have the first ****ing clue about economics and that by definition, they guy who introduced the minimum wage can't be described as a "neo-liberal."

The NMW / NLW - now there was a tool to fúck up the lower end of the labour market.

Instead of prescribing the rate of pay why didn't they incentivise companies, through tax breaks, to pay their staff more?
Of course, the public sector pay their staff higher than NMW / NLW levels and they contract out the lower paid, 'dirty side' of things to private companies.

The NMW / NLW has become completely stigmatised. And to get to the promised land of the NLW at £9/hr by 2020 is going to require a near 10% increase next year.

That, my friends, will have a significant economic impact not only through those at the bottom getting a signifiant rise but maintaining differentials with those paid slightly above the NMW / NLW.

Who'da thunk politics and economics had an effect on each other..?

[Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult]

The NMW / NLW - now there was a tool to fúck up the lower end of the labour market.

Instead of prescribing the rate of pay why didn't they incentivise companies, through tax breaks, to pay their staff more?
Of course, the public sector pay their staff higher than NMW / NLW levels and they contract out the lower paid, 'dirty side' of things to private companies.

The NMW / NLW has become completely stigmatised. And to get to the promised land of the NLW at £9/hr by 2020 is going to require a near 10% increase next year.

That, my friends, will have a significant economic impact not only through those at the bottom getting a signifiant rise but maintaining differentials with those paid slightly above the NMW / NLW.

Who'da thunk politics and economics had an effect on each other..?

I agree with much of that. But as I say, try explaining to a Corbynista that a law that prevents the supply and demand of labour setting the price (wage) by creating an artificial minimum is the very antithesis of neo-liberalism. I swear to God, some of them think it means invading the Middle East.

I pulled one up on the Graun for using the term neo-liberalism once, and he replied: "Ok. Well, capitalism then." It's a nightmare when all your mates who are political are ignorant lefties. They mean well, of course, that's why people become lefties. But they don't like it when you explain that what they've picked up from the internet is one-sided at best and often downright inaccurate. This is why I generally avoid social media (he says on a message board.)

[Burney]

Ad hominem

And you have refuted very little of the article including some points that directly contradict the 'undemocratic' view. As an example:

'The Commission can only propose laws in those areas where the EU governments have unanimously agreed to allow it to do under the EU treaty. Put another way, the Commission can only propose EU laws in areas where the UK government and the House of Commons has allowed it to do so.'

:rolleyes: Those permissions are not granted on a case by case basis. They were granted in perpetuity by treaty at Maastricht (and subsequently Lisbon) and were never subjected to public approval or disapproval. Blair promised a vote on Lisbon, of course, but then withdrew that commitment as he knew he'd lose badly.

You surely cannot be arguing that a decision taken unilaterally by governments that left office years before many voters were even born and which is effectively immutable (other than by leaving the EU, of course) can remain democratically legitimate in perpetuity? A key principle of the British constitution is that no Parliament may bind its successors in perpetuity and yet that is - in effect - precisely what signing these treaties did. As such, those 'permissions' are not democratically legitimate. The price paid to remain part of the EU was to abandon our system of democratic and parliamentary scrutiny over vast swathes of our statute book. To those of us who believe in democracy, it was not and is not a price worth paying.

Dismantling those treaties - because they subvert our domestic legislative process and allow laws to be passed pretty much in perpetuity without proper democratic scrutiny - is very much where the impetus for Brexit came from.

[WES]

:rolleyes: Those permissions are not granted on a case by case basis. They were granted in perpetuity by treaty at Maastricht (and subsequently Lisbon) and were never subjected to public approval or disapproval. Blair promised a vote on Lisbon, of course, but then withdrew that commitment as he knew he'd lose badly.

You surely cannot be arguing that a decision taken unilaterally by governments that left office years before many voters were even born and which is effectively immutable (other than by leaving the EU, of course) can remain democratically legitimate in perpetuity? A key principle of the British constitution is that no Parliament may bind its successors in perpetuity and yet that is - in effect - precisely what signing these treaties did. As such, those 'permissions' are not democratically legitimate. The price paid to remain part of the EU was to abandon our system of democratic and parliamentary scrutiny over vast swathes of our statute book. To those of us who believe in democracy, it was not and is not a price worth paying.

Dismantling those treaties - because they subvert our domestic legislative process and allow laws to be passed pretty much in perpetuity without proper democratic scrutiny - is very much where the impetus for Brexit came from.

Your version of democracy seems to involve only British people voting on something. Of course we have less democratic control over how the EU votes, all countries do, it would have been impossible to form the EU and receive the benefits of it (which England has in spades) without sacrificing that level of democracy.

But to describe the EU as anti-democratic is simply wrong. It is democracy at a different level enforced in a different way for the benefit of the participants. :shrug:

[redgunamo]

That's right. Or rather, their (the Europeans') version of democracy is so far at odds with ours that it hardly counts as the same thing, in our eyes. Germany doesn't even have the right to trial by jury, for God's sake!


Your version of democracy seems to involve only British people voting on something.

[WES]

That's right. Or rather, their (the Europeans') version of democracy is so far at odds with ours that it hardly counts as the same thing, in our eyes. Germany doesn't even have the right to trial by jury, for God's sake!

Oh I have no problem with people saying that the EU's version of democracy isn't good enough and we want to leave on that basis regardless of the impact on the country (in fact, that is the only Leave view that I have any respect for), but to refer to the EU as not being democratic is incorrect and the suggestion that a non-elected executive (it is elected) can pass legislation (it can't) without any democratic process (there is one) is simply incorrect.

People should be accurate even in matters emotional imo. :nod:

[Burney]

Your version of democracy seems to involve only British people voting on something. Of course we have less democratic control over how the EU votes, all countries do, it would have been impossible to form the EU and receive the benefits of it (which England has in spades) without sacrificing that level of democracy.

But to describe the EU as anti-democratic is simply wrong. It is democracy at a different level enforced in a different way for the benefit of the participants. :shrug:

That is because - as a has patiently explained - the nation state is to date by far the most effective mechanism mankind has yet discovered for delivering actual democratic accountability. Democracy relies upon the consent of the governed. In the nation state that exists because people largely believe wholeheartedly in and feel part of the larger entity that is the nation.
In the case of European 'democracy', that is demonstrably not the case. Barring a minority of EU fanatics, the EU's 'consent' relies on a fantasy - the fantasy that we are all one big European family that is happy to forego national identities and local concerns for the sake of the larger European entity. That is clearly nonsense - all the member nations continue to place their own interests first - and thus any democratic entity predicated on it is nothing of the sort.
And while we're at it, let's look at the nature of the European Parliament. There are 73 UK MEPs in the European Parliament. That means that each one on average represents more than 904,000 people. The average MP in this country represents just over a tenth of that number. So in purely mathematical terms, the UK's democracy is nearly ten times as representative as the EU's most democratic - and least powerful - body.
So yes, it is democracy 'on a different level'. It is on a much lower and vastly less democratic level.

[Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult]

Oh I have no problem with people saying that the EU's version of democracy isn't good enough and we want to leave on that basis regardless of the impact on the country (in fact, that is the only Leave view that I have any respect for), but to refer to the EU as not being democratic is incorrect and the suggestion that a non-elected executive (it is elected) can pass legislation (it can't) without any democratic process (there is one) is simply incorrect.

People should be accurate even in matters emotional imo. :nod:

Spot on.

You're still wrong about Rambo, though. Speaking of which, if we leave the EU what happens to the Bosman ruling?

[WES]

That is because - as a has patiently explained - the nation state is to date by far the most effective mechanism mankind has yet discovered for delivering actual democratic accountability. Democracy relies upon the consent of the governed. In the nation state that exists because people largely believe wholeheartedly in and feel part of the larger entity that is the nation.
In the case of European 'democracy', that is demonstrably not the case. Barring a minority of EU fanatics, the EU's 'consent' relies on a fantasy - the fantasy that we are all one big European family that is happy to forego national identities and local concerns for the sake of the larger European entity. That is clearly nonsense - all the member nations continue to place their own interests first - and thus any democratic entity predicated on it is nothing of the sort.
And while we're at it, let's look at the nature of the European Parliament. There are 73 UK MEPs in the European Parliament. That means that each one on average represents more than 904,000 people. The average MP in this country represents just over a tenth of that number. So in purely mathematical terms, the UK's democracy is nearly ten times as representative as the EU's most democratic - and least powerful - body.
So yes, it is democracy 'on a different level'. It is on a much lower and vastly less democratic level.

You see, we agree on dim sum and this. :-)