The now-enacted will of (some of) the people

[colhint]

About the same luck required to vote for any EU commissioner

Edited July 16, 2017 by colhint
spelling

[chrisp65]

2 minutes ago, colhint said:

About the same luck required to vote for any EU commissioner

The original point was the other way around, that we weren't getting repped in europe. My point was that you aren't being repped here either.

The counter to that isn't really to say the first point again. 

 

[a m ole]

18 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

People had the choice to vote or not for MEP's. People used their democratic choice not to bother expressing an opinion.

Best of luck voting for your next king to rule over you.

 

I know, I'm taking the piss out of people who call them unelected

[a m ole]

10 minutes ago, colhint said:

About the same luck required to vote for any EU commissioner

You don't vote for the Prime Minister or their Cabinet, either.

[colhint]

but you can if you want to. If you were so fussed about it, and  move to their constituency you could. 

If you could get the support of everyone in europe to vote with you against any commissioner you couldn't remove them ever

 

[Chindie]

2 minutes ago, colhint said:

but you can if you want to. If you were so fussed about it, and  move to their constituency you could. 

If you could get the support of everyone in europe to vote with you against any commissioner you couldn't remove them ever

 

The European Parliament can dismiss the Commission. And the Council of Europe (i.e. European heads of state) has the capacity to force their removal as well.

And Commissioners are appointed by their native country's governments. Much like other positions are appointed that are not directly voted on in government.

It's not perfect. But it's not as bad as often made out.

[ml1dch]

41 minutes ago, colhint said:

but you can if you want to. If you were so fussed about it, and  move to their constituency you could. 

If you could get the support of everyone in europe to vote with you against any commissioner you couldn't remove them ever

 

Just like you wouldn't be able to cobble enough people together to remove the Permanent Secretary to the Cabinet Office and (s)he is one of the most powerful people in the country.

Astonishingly, people don't seem quite so keen to wet their knickers about "unelected bureaucracts" in that context though.

[Demitri_C]

Quote

 

9 Signs Brexit Isn’t Quite Going As Planned

16/07/2017 12:53 | Updated 19 hours ago

Chris York  Senior Editor, HuffPost UK

 

1) The Government Is Eating Itself

Just this morning the Chancellor all but admitted the Cabinet is deeply divided over negotiations.

Hammond has been hit by a series of press reports claiming the he told the Cabinet that public sector workers were “overpaid” and that driving a train was now so easy that “even” a woman could do it.

Appearing on BBC1’s The Andrew Marr Show, he blamed colleagues opposed to the agenda he had been setting out for extended transitional arrangements when Britain leaves the EU in 2019 so business was not faced with a “cliff edge” break.

He said: “If you want may opinion, some of the noise is generated by people who are not happy with the agenda which I, over the last few weeks, have tried to advance of ensuring that we achieve a Brexit which is focused on protecting our economy, protecting our jobs, and making sure that we have continued rising living standards in the future.”

2) We’re Going To Be Less Safe Unless The PM Budges

A soon-to-be-released House of Lords report will warn that if European Court of Justice (ECJ) oversight on intelligence sharing is not conceded, vital national security information could “fall between the cracks”.

Flowers and tributes to the victims of the attack on Manchester Arena.

Currently, ECJ oversight has been ruled out by the PM.

A source who has seen the report in advance, told the Independent: “The committee will say a transitional arrangement is crucial if the Government is not going to put national security at risk.

“It will say it has little confidence that a new deal can be struck in time – so the status quo makes sense, which involves oversight by the European Court of Justice.”

“The committee was taken aback by ministers’ inability to give any clear direction as to how they intend to deal with this enormously complex issue.”

3) The DUP

May’s disastrous General Election result means a party made up of anti-abortion, anti-LBGQT+ Creationists who believe the Earth is less than 10,000-years-old now has a decisive say in Brexit affairs.

That wasn’t how things were supposed to pan out...

4) France Is Ready To Swoop On The City

Former Home Office minister Jeremy Browne, who acts as the City of London’s envoy on Brexit, has revealed the French are being completely open in their aim to exploit Brexit and weaken the UK’s financial heart.

YVES HERMAN / REUTERS

French President Emmanuel Macron locked in a Trump handshake.

He said: “They are crystal clear about their underlying objective: the weakening of Britain, the ongoing degradation of the City of London.”

5) Germany Says We’re ‘Making It Up As We Go Along’

Irish senators briefed by the German parliament’s finance committee revealed some incredibly harsh words for the UK’s Brexit negotiating team.

Merkel and May meeting earlier this month at the G20 summit.

One, Ray Butler, said: “They said they met the finance committee in London and they were shocked by the way they handled themselves.

“They said they were making it up as the went along and were very poorly prepared for Brexit.

“It was actually farcical is what they said. They came out of the meeting very bemused and annoyed.”

6) We Won’t Be Ready In Time

Former head of the Civil Service, Lord O’Donnell, has warned Britain is in for a “rough ride” because of Cabinet infighting, unrealistic expectations and an overburdened administration.

Writing in The Observer, he said: “The EU has clear negotiating guidelines, while it appears that cabinet members haven’t yet finished negotiating with each other, never mind the EU.

“There is no chance all the details will be hammered out in 20 months.

“We will need a long transition phase and the time needed does not diminish by pretending that this phase is just about ‘implementing’ agreed policies as they will not all be agreed.”

7) Even The Vote Leave Campaign Chief Says May’s Brexit Plan Is ‘Unacceptable Bullshit’

Dominic Cummings, the man behind the EU referendum ‘Leave’ campaign, last week slammed May’s approach to Brexit as “unacceptable bullshit”.

In a series of tweets posted on Monday, Cummings criticised the prime minister’s decision to withdraw the UK from the Euratom agency that overseas the safe movement of nuclear materials in Europe. 

 

8) The Era Of Cheap Flights Is At Risk

The London-based budget airline easyJet says it is opening a base in Vienna, Austria, to prepare for the potential effects of Brexit.

EasyJet said Friday it will open a European Union base in Austria’s capital “regardless of the outcome of talks on a future U.K.-EU aviation agreement.”

EasyJet said the new base will protect their flying rights in Europe, but that they’ll continue to fight for a Brexit deal that at least allows flights between Britain and the EU.

9) Liam Fox Still Doesn’t Have A Job

A big part of Fox’s job as Secretary of State for International Trade is signing trade deals.

Well, it should be but he can’t agree with his Tory colleagues about when he should start. 

Last week he said he would be happy to accept a transitional period when Britain leaves the European Union but that it must be within a time limit and give Britain the freedom to negotiate its own trade deals.

But earlier the same day Hammond had said senior Government ministers were becoming convinced of the need for transitional arrangements to reduce disruption as Britain leaves the EU.

 

click

This was my biggest fear with brexit, trusting a UK government to get us out. What a absolute mess 

[magnkarl]

6 hours ago, Demitri_C said:

click

This was my biggest fear with brexit, trusting a UK government to get us out. What a absolute mess 

Agreed. I'd be more trustful of our negotiators if they were Swiss or Norwegian, because they know how to actually negotiate with the EU. Us on the other hand - we're treading waters that we haven't ever tread before with a government who has ailing support, propped up by a party that is pissing off a majority in another EU country while at the same time letting people who have failed their whole political career do our negotiations.

I'm sure Theresa could spend her £2bn on a whole raft of Swiss and Norwegian negotiators that could blow David Davis out of the water. I hear First House of Oslo and Didier Chambovey can tango with EU bureaucrats all day any day.  

The company that my daughter works for is considering opening an office right outside the eurostar terminal in Calais, Normandy and moving all finances there, and if it's anything to go by they aren't the only ones considering a move. This will leave them with access to a lot of talent from London while at the same time circumventing any problems Brexit may have.

Edited July 17, 2017 by magnkarl

[Enda]

23 hours ago, magnkarl said:

I'm not arguing that we should leave the EU, I am arguing that EU needs reform

I hear this a lot, but I've never heard specifics.

Please list the top three processes you'd like to see reformed. Not policies, or contentious issues, or personalities, or mutterings about bureaucrats in Brussels, but actual clear processes. For example, "I would like the Commission to be directly elected" or "I would like QMV applied to matter of taxation." Your top three. Thanks.

[blandy]

47 minutes ago, Enda said:

I hear this a lot, but I've never heard specifics.

Please list the top three processes you'd like to see reformed. Not policies, or contentious issues, or personalities, or mutterings about bureaucrats in Brussels, but actual clear processes. For example, "I would like the Commission to be directly elected" or "I would like QMV applied to matter of taxation." Your top three. Thanks.

First 3 off the top of my head.

I would like the process by which the CAP is determined to be reformed

I would like the process by which trade negotiations are conducted to be massively reformed

I would like the process of the European Parliament upping sticks and moving every month between Brussels and Strasbourg to be removed.

There are loads of areas where it's every bit as flawed as the UK (and no doubt most other) parliaments and institutions.

[colhint]

Be nice if they could have the accounts fully signed off just once.

[Enda]

49 minutes ago, blandy said:

First 3 off the top of my head.

I would like the process by which the CAP is determined to be reformed

I would like the process by which trade negotiations are conducted to be massively reformed

I would like the process of the European Parliament upping sticks and moving every month between Brussels and Strasbourg to be removed.

There are loads of areas where it's every bit as flawed as the UK (and no doubt most other) parliaments and institutions.

Fair enough on the movement of the Parliament, no complaints there.

The other two are a lot more murky and again sort of just refer to "reform" without any detail. For example, would you like the Commission to have more executive power to plow ahead without much discussion with UK farmers over CAP payments, or would you like it more decentralised and more bargaining power given to Member States? Same question with trade negotiations. Are you happy with the new Union Customs Code, or which bits should be changed? Do you think Member States should have more say, even if this inevitably slows the process down? As I said, "I hear this a lot, but I've never heard specifics."

I know I'm being picky here, sorry for that, but I would love if we put a tax on saying "The EU needs reform" without giving any specific ideas/critiques/suggestions!

[Enda]

4 minutes ago, Enda said:

Fair enough on the movement of the Parliament, no complaints there.

The other two are a lot more murky and again sort of just refer to "reform" without any detail. For example, would you like the Commission to have more executive power to plow ahead without much discussion with UK farmers over CAP payments, or would you like it more decentralised and more bargaining power given to Member States? Same question with trade negotiations. Are you happy with the new Union Customs Code, or which bits should be changed? Do you think Member States should have more say, even if this inevitably slows the process down? As I said, "I hear this a lot, but I've never heard specifics."

I know I'm being picky here, sorry for that, but I would love if we put a tax on saying "The EU needs reform" without giving any specific ideas/critiques/suggestions!

One two specific questions for ya, blandy: do you think the EU should consider a country's environmental policy/carbon footprint/ratification of Paris Accord when it is negotiating trade deals with them, i.e. do you think we should be "friendlier" with countries that are trying to curb carbon emissions? Second question: should the EU consider a country's human rights/military policy when it is negotiating trade deals with them, i.e. do you think we should use our economic strength to influence whether Russia invades Ukraine/Uganda kills gay people etc?

[blandy]

27 minutes ago, Enda said:

Fair enough on the movement of the Parliament, no complaints there.The other two are a lot more murky and again sort of just refer to "reform" without any detail. 

You asked for a list of 3, not detail .

Quote

For example, would you like the Commission to have more executive power to plow ahead without much discussion with UK farmers over CAP payments, or would you like it more decentralised and more bargaining power given to Member States? Same question with trade negotiations. Are you happy with the new Union Customs Code, or which bits should be changed? Do you think Member States should have more say, even if this inevitably slows the process down? As I said, "I hear this a lot, but I've never heard specifics."

I know I'm being picky here, sorry for that, but I would love if we put a tax on saying "The EU needs reform" without giving any specific ideas/critiques/suggestions!

I'm not a bureaucrat or administrator or politician, so there's no point me trying to claim detailed understanding - I don't have that.

What I do see is that TTIP was negotiated by the EU in a manner that was an absolute insult to democracy and accountability. Lots of lobbyists from industry nd even the MEPs were massively inhibited in terms of being able to consult with their voters on the details. You'll be aware of this no doubt, being an Irish politicians video on oversight. In terms of changes to that policy - the MEP exposes much of what needs to change, and the how is implicit.

As for the CAP, the harm to the environment that has resulted from various iterations of it is immense. Some of the idiocy has been reversed by reforming it, but it continues to encourage environmental damage for money. Chopping down mature trees is a current example. And economically it rewards large farms and huge factory farms and for wealthy landowners and does little or nothing for small farms, mitigating against local producers in favour of the huge producers. It needs to completely change the way it's implemented (but it won't).

So there's some detail on the 3 I listed.

 

[blandy]

30 minutes ago, Enda said:

One two specific questions for ya, blandy: do you think the EU should consider a country's environmental policy/carbon footprint/ratification of Paris Accord when it is negotiating trade deals with them, i.e. do you think we should be "friendlier" with countries that are trying to curb carbon emissions? Second question: should the EU consider a country's human rights/military policy when it is negotiating trade deals with them, i.e. do you think we should use our economic strength to influence whether Russia invades Ukraine/Uganda kills gay people etc?

Yes and yes. Not in absolutist terms - i.e not as in never do deals with countries "we" disapprove of for whatever reason is the current focus or fashion, but the use of beneficial trade treaties to influence or change behaviour is clearly something that can work to make things better.

[limpid]

48 minutes ago, blandy said:

What I do see is that TTIP was negotiated by the EU in a manner that was an absolute insult to democracy and accountability. Lots of lobbyists from industry nd even the MEPs were massively inhibited in terms of being able to consult with their voters on the details. You'll be aware of this no doubt, being an Irish politicians video on oversight. In terms of changes to that policy - the MEP exposes much of what needs to change, and the how is implicit.

The Great Repeal Bill will be worse for democracy than TTIP in every possible way.

[magnkarl]

3 hours ago, Enda said:

I hear this a lot, but I've never heard specifics.

Please list the top three processes you'd like to see reformed. Not policies, or contentious issues, or personalities, or mutterings about bureaucrats in Brussels, but actual clear processes. For example, "I would like the Commission to be directly elected" or "I would like QMV applied to matter of taxation." Your top three. Thanks.

1) Quotas on asylum seekers from Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan etc actually being enforced. Sweden, Germany and Denmark carrying the brunt load of this disaster and no one wanting to address the elephant in the room is beyond me.

2) Stop moving the commission between Strasbourg and Brussels, if you are going to move it between states then do it so that each member gets the commission in its country for say 6-12 months.

3) Release signed off ledgers rather than something someone has estimated. FIFA released estimated costs and budgets for 30 years, we all saw how horribly wrong they were. I want to be able to scrutinise the real thing - not something that is made to look pretty.

4) Air quality laws need revamping to be enforceable. 130 cities in Europe aren't even getting close to the targets. Much like I think the Paris agreement is ridiculous for allowing people to pollute more now and "maybe make it up later", I think that these laws are nothing more than a little poke at the problem.

5) The biodegradable landfill laws are much like above. They came out with good quality laws but then U-turned in 2015 and allowed more waste to be dumped than ever before.

6) The direct impact I as an EU citizen have on the EU commission is nowhere near where I want it to be. We should be allowed to vote for the council of ministers. I can only affect a single MEP, while the power games and frank ridiculousness that comes from people like Junker - who is elected on friendships in a chamber that I have extremely little influence over seems to be nothing short of undemocratic. My 1/850million vote should weigh as much as everyone else's, yet this tier system developed by the EU when it comes to electing its own makes it into a really flawed way of selecting the government of the MEP's.

Specific enough for you?

All in all I find the whole "oh crap we **** up, push the problem ahead 5 years and call it something new" stance that the EU has to things like environment is stupid. If we can afford to throw billions at a failing economy in Greece we should all be able to pay into a fund that gets released when we meet our targets. I know you're going to say "but the EU is the best in the world at environment protection", but to me being the best out of a really bad bunch isn't worth a medal or worth being called any sort of achievement.

Edited July 17, 2017 by magnkarl

[Enda]

Lads, you're not hearing me.

Saying we should enforce quotas on asylum seekers is a complaint, not a specific reform. The issue is legal authority. Do you want to grant the Commission the power to forcibly make the UK accept asylum seekers that landed in Italy? Are you really okay with that, and all that it implies? If you are, grand, then say you want the Commission to have powers to relocate people between Member States' borders. (For what it's worth, I'd be completely against that. Although the asylum seeker numbers are very clearly a big issue, I don't see it as a problem that's easily solved/something which I can rightly blame the EU for. Sweden, very very decently, have accepted a ton of immigrants under their roof. That's not Ireland's problem. The most I'd be willing to accept is we sit down with Sweden and have a chat about our moral responsibilities and try reach a friendly agreement. I don't want the EU to have stronger powers there, so I don't see this as an EU problem.)

Same thing with environmental laws or the CAP. Step forward and proclaim you want the Commission more powers to punish/fine the UK if it doesn't adhere to standards.

Coming up with something that:

1. Is more than a symbolic gesture
2. Permits the Commission or the European Parliament to act swiftly and decisively
3. Respects national sovereignty/"take back control"/not moving towards a United States of Europe situation

is bloody hard. I'd suggest that the actual location of Parliament is relatively minor in terms of point 1 above, though happy to agree to disagree on that. Any reforms to CAP or environmental enforcement quickly pushes against 3. I'm not asking for you to point out the bloody obvious that Sweden has taken more asylum seekers than it can handle or that CAP "isn't perfect". The real issue here, the way I see it, is people want the EU to function more decisively, but also want to "take back control" or complain about laws that go against their own national interest. You cannot have both. It's very very very easy to bitch about the EU and say it needs reform. It's much harder to make a suggestion that satisfies all three of the above.

[magnkarl]

24 minutes ago, Enda said:

Lads, you're not hearing me.

Saying we should enforce quotas on asylum seekers is a complaint, not a specific reform. The issue is legal authority. Do you want to grant the Commission the power to forcibly make the UK accept asylum seekers that landed in Italy? Are you really okay with that, and all that it implies? If you are, grand, then say you want the Commission to have powers to relocate people between Member States' borders. (For what it's worth, I'd be completely against that. Although the asylum seeker numbers are very clearly a big issue, I don't see it as a problem that's easily solved/something which I can rightly blame the EU for. Sweden, very very decently, have accepted a ton of immigrants under their roof. That's not Ireland's problem. The most I'd be willing to accept is we sit down with Sweden and have a chat about our moral responsibilities and try reach a friendly agreement. I don't want the EU to have stronger powers there, so I don't see this as an EU problem.)

Same thing with environmental laws or the CAP. Step forward and proclaim you want the Commission more powers to punish/fine the UK if it doesn't adhere to standards.

Coming up with something that:

1. Is more than a symbolic gesture
2. Permits the Commission or the European Parliament to act swiftly and decisively
3. Respects national sovereignty/"take back control"/not moving towards a United States of Europe situation

is bloody hard. I'd suggest that the actual location of Parliament is relatively minor in terms of point 1 above, though happy to agree to disagree on that. Any reforms to CAP or environmental enforcement quickly pushes against 3. I'm not asking for you to point out the bloody obvious that Sweden has taken more asylum seekers than it can handle or that CAP "isn't perfect". The real issue here, the way I see it, is people want the EU to function more decisively, but also want to "take back control" or complain about laws that go against their own national interest. You cannot have both. It's very very very easy to bitch about the EU and say it needs reform. It's much harder to make a suggestion that satisfies all three of the above.

Re asylum seekers I think it damn well is a reform that needs to happen. The people who are now within the borders of the union in Italy can't suddenly become Italy's problem when, if an Italian citizen anywhere else in the EU is the problem of whichever member state they are in. This dodgy way of avoiding the problem just shows that the EU likes to hide behind the "you want more control" excuse when it comes to garnering support for dealing with the problem of a lifetime, however when it comes to posturing about things like trying to force member states to accept the Euro and other directives goes totally the other way.

Either a) we are a union where people accept the negatives and positives and share equally in the burdens, or Sweden tells everyone to eff off and leaves the union because they are being treated extremely unfairly. If Italy and Sweden gave all the migrants EU passports and sent them to Ireland or Strasbourg you and a lot of the people on the commission would have a complete other tone towards the problem. Let's gang up on the Visegrad faction of the EU instead though, they aren't sharing our common values. Emphasis on common, as soon as the problem hits one of the smaller countries that can be bossed around said values are no longer common. Helping out asylum seekers is clearly not a common value.

There is a hell of a lot of difference in shared burden in the union considering all the talk that we are hearing of the UK "not at all getting a good deal for both sides". What would you call the deal that Sweden is currently getting in a union that preaches equality between states?

Edited July 17, 2017 by magnkarl