Europe again. Unaccountable and undemocratic. This sums it up.

[Guinness Boy]

I guess no more than you and Bernard considering your recent posts.

My “obsession” if you choose to call it that is that we learn from history and preserve our sovereignty at all costs. I think history would indicate that this county was always ultimately better off in resisting European hegemony in all of its guises over the last 800 years.

Our forebears had to fight hard over the years to preserve it and sacrificed a lot, so meekly handing it over to some unelected foreigners who are (a) in thrall to global capitalism (b) unaccountable to the British people, and (c) have no primary interest in the wellbeing of the British people is not in my view a route to the sunlit uplands.

If you don’t want to take history just look at Greece, and the other poor European countries that will ultimately have their sovereignty ground to the dust by the euro machine being driven by greedy EU politicians and monetarists.

So, if I have to choose between the unelected Houses of Lords and the UK Government’s constitutional ability to overrule its rejection of proposed laws in comparison to the unelected EU Commission which has authority under the Lisbon Treaty to implement law onto the statute book of member states without ANY agreement by the EU Parliament or more importantly the elected legislatures of member states then its YES all day long to the Houses of Lords.

What about you Sepp………..EU Commission or House of Lords? Simple yes or no?

That's not an either or choice and you didn't give me a yes or no answer. I would personally abolish the House of Lords for an elected upper house. I haven't decided how I will vote in the EU Referendum because it is likely to be in 2017 and I'd rather do it based upon what the social, economic and political landscape was then. I haven't got a crystal ball and there's two years worth of shenannigans to go on with the Greeks just for starters. If the referendum was today I'd vote to stay in.

You are also talking complete garbage, Not only for the reason HT has posted below (but definitely including that reason) but because the Second World War, in case you forgot, was a case of The Allies - most of the rest of Europe with Italy changing its mind - against one nation state that was self determining and out of control. The Cold War that followed it did just as much to shape European Union. The West prospered while the East went to hell in a handcart and everyone starved, wore identical clothes, drove Ladas and could neither vote not leave.

Your constant Nazi references are not only inaccurate but increasingly irrelevant. Assuming 1933 as a start point for Hitler's real rise this was all kicking off over 80 years ago. It's the same as someone invoking the Crimean War as a lesson during the latter part of the Great Depression.

You are talking absolute utter rubbish.

Please read how EU law is made for the sake of yourself and everyone reading http://europa.eu/eu-law/decision-making/procedures/index_en.htm


This bit is salient

"Both the Council (ie individual governments) and the Parliament (directly elected) can block the legislative proposal." So, the Commission has no authority to do anything unless individual governments reps and the directly elected members let them. They just propose and administer. They have NO power as such. This is pretty much the opposite of what you wrote. Where do you get your info from?

Thank you.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Thank you.

A pleasure.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

That's not an either or choice and you didn't give me a yes or no answer. I would personally abolish the House of Lords for an elected upper house. I haven't decided how I will vote in the EU Referendum because it is likely to be in 2017 and I'd rather do it based upon what the social, economic and political landscape was then. I haven't got a crystal ball and there's two years worth of shenannigans to go on with the Greeks just for starters. If the referendum was today I'd vote to stay in.

You are also talking complete garbage, Not only for the reason HT has posted below (but definitely including that reason) but because the Second World War, in case you forgot, was a case of The Allies - most of the rest of Europe with Italy changing its mind - against one nation state that was self determining and out of control. The Cold War that followed it did just as much to shape European Union. The West prospered while the East went to hell in a handcart and everyone starved, wore identical clothes, drove Ladas and could neither vote not leave.

Your constant Nazi references are not only inaccurate but increasingly irrelevant. Assuming 1933 as a start point for Hitler's real rise this was all kicking off over 80 years ago. It's the same as someone invoking the Crimean War as a lesson during the latter part of the Great Depression.



Thank you.

Here here.

 

[cunning fergus]

You are talking absolute utter rubbish.

Please read how EU law is made for the sake of yourself and everyone reading http://europa.eu/eu-law/decision-making/procedures/index_en.htm


This bit is salient

"Both the Council (ie individual governments) and the Parliament (directly elected) can block the legislative proposal." So, the Commission has no authority to do anything unless individual governments reps and the directly elected members let them. They just propose and administer. They have NO power as such. This is pretty much the opposite of what you wrote. Where do you get your info from?

That would be telling...........after all our time on this matter let's not spoil the fun we have about the EU now.

So let's start with EU Directives........created by the unelected Commission, passed by Parliament and implemented by member states Govt. Implementing acts.

Then there are EU Regulations created by the Commission, and in the ordinary course passed by Parliament, then imposed directly on the member state, delegated acts. The elected member states Govt has no right to block it.........I refer you back to the e-call regulation I referred to earlier.........implemented without a by your leave.

Another example, albeit a little less recently but you would know of was the news of Osbourne capitulating to the EU about bankers pay, this was because the remuneration rules were set out in the Capital Requirements Regulation. Another example of how individual member states elected Governments are marginalised by the unelected Commission.

http://www.innertemplelibrary.org.uk/news/FAQeu/DifferencesDirectives.htm

Furthermore under the Lisbon Treaty the EU Commission is delegated powers to create, implement and delegate laws (under TFEU 290 and 291) under Urgency Procedures, which means it can "delegate" law directly. This is massive power, and whilst the Parliament can review subsequently, that is to ignore practical reality that the EU Parliament is not a genuine Parliament, and they serve the interests of the EU.

The Greek crisis has demonstrated the power of the Commission to act unitarily.........no doubt the Parliament will catch up on that.........and then do what?

They can go tell the Spartans I guess......

 

[cunning fergus]

That's not an either or choice and you didn't give me a yes or no answer. I would personally abolish the House of Lords for an elected upper house. I haven't decided how I will vote in the EU Referendum because it is likely to be in 2017 and I'd rather do it based upon what the social, economic and political landscape was then. I haven't got a crystal ball and there's two years worth of shenannigans to go on with the Greeks just for starters. If the referendum was today I'd vote to stay in.

You are also talking complete garbage, Not only for the reason HT has posted below (but definitely including that reason) but because the Second World War, in case you forgot, was a case of The Allies - most of the rest of Europe with Italy changing its mind - against one nation state that was self determining and out of control. The Cold War that followed it did just as much to shape European Union. The West prospered while the East went to hell in a handcart and everyone starved, wore identical clothes, drove Ladas and could neither vote not leave.

Your constant Nazi references are not only inaccurate but increasingly irrelevant. Assuming 1933 as a start point for Hitler's real rise this was all kicking off over 80 years ago. It's the same as someone invoking the Crimean War as a lesson during the latter part of the Great Depression.



Thank you.

Let's put it this way, what is the greater affront to British democracy, the unelected Houses of Lords or the EU Commission, there is no contest. Your choice to stay in in light if Greek shenanigans speaks volumes.

As for WW2 I am not going down that rabbit hole........there were plenty of current EU states fighting and sympathetic to the German cause, just as there are on this thread.........you know who you are.

History by the way is always relevant.........people like you than want to say things are not relevant because they happened 80 years ago only do so for the matters you don't want to be reminded of.

The Greeks are battling that conundrum right now..........

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

That would be telling...........after all our time on this matter let's not spoil the fun we have about the EU now.

So let's start with EU Directives........created by the unelected Commission, passed by Parliament and implemented by member states Govt. Implementing acts.

Then there are EU Regulations created by the Commission, and in the ordinary course passed by Parliament, then imposed directly on the member state, delegated acts. The elected member states Govt has no right to block it.........I refer you back to the e-call regulation I referred to earlier.........implemented without a by your leave.

Another example, albeit a little less recently but you would know of was the news of Osbourne capitulating to the EU about bankers pay, this was because the remuneration rules were set out in the Capital Requirements Regulation. Another example of how individual member states elected Governments are marginalised by the unelected Commission.

http://www.innertemplelibrary.org.uk/news/FAQeu/DifferencesDirectives.htm

Furthermore under the Lisbon Treaty the EU Commission is delegated powers to create, implement and delegate laws (under TFEU 290 and 291) under Urgency Procedures, which means it can "delegate" law directly. This is massive power, and whilst the Parliament can review subsequently, that is to ignore practical reality that the EU Parliament is not a genuine Parliament, and they serve the interests of the EU.

The Greek crisis has demonstrated the power of the Commission to act unitarily.........no doubt the Parliament will catch up on that.........and then do what?

They can go tell the Spartans I guess......

Jeez. Here we go again.


http://epthinktank.eu/2012/09/24/delegated-and-implementing-acts/

No, it's not a massive power, it's not even a small power. Just like I demonstrated earlier, yet again, there is NO power. I quote "with delegated acts the EP or Council can object to an individual act or revoke the delegation altogether." See, no power. One more time, in capitals NO POWER. Repeat after me, NO POWER.

And please research how EU law happens. You'll do yourself and everyone else a big favour.

 

[beorhthelm]

http://epthinktank.eu/2012/09/24/delegated-and-implementing-acts/

No, it's not a massive power, it's not even a small power. Just like I demonstrated earlier, yet again, there is NO power. I quote "with delegated acts the EP or Council can object to an individual act or revoke the delegation altogether." See, no power. One more time, in capitals NO POWER. Repeat after me, NO POWER.

except all those powers that have been delegated to the Commission. until such time as the EP argues through a labyrinth of committees to rescind that power (to where it is not clear, a dormant or redundant legistlative state?). your link shows how bureaucratic the EU governance is. what it misses is that the EU commission was setup with the objective to be the legislative executive (it is the body that initiates drafting of legislation and oversees enactment of that legislation). to argue it has no power is therfore a rather odd position to hold, as it suggests its a meaningless white elephant. though Europe does have from on that front, im pretty sure they didnt write a treaty specifically to create one.

 

[cunning fergus]

Jeez. Here we go again.


http://epthinktank.eu/2012/09/24/delegated-and-implementing-acts/

No, it's not a massive power, it's not even a small power. Just like I demonstrated earlier, yet again, there is NO power. I quote "with delegated acts the EP or Council can object to an individual act or revoke the delegation altogether." See, no power. One more time, in capitals NO POWER. Repeat after me, NO POWER.

And please research how EU law happens. You'll do yourself and everyone else a big favour.

Here's a webinar for you on the powers of the unelected EU Commission post Lisbon Treaty.....

http://www.eu-academy.eu/freeresources/eu-regulatory-affairs-implementing-delegated-acts/

Here's a debate with the 2 experts in connection with democratic legitimacy and the power of the Commission.


Question:Why can the Commission and its agencies take decisions since it is a non-elected body and even taken into account the consultations, this does not look good from a democracy and transparency point of view?

(András) It is absolutely not my task to defend the Commission but in terms of the governance nature of the EU, it makes sense that there is an administrative and executive body just like any government agency which with sufficient and unbiased scientific input from neutral experts such as in the EFSA or in the Medicines Agency or any other EU agency eventually it makes policy under the necessary safeguards. Now, where the system can certainly be criticized is whether the safeguards are sufficient. Because it is the eternal dilemma between efficiency and democracy and when it comes to these technical measures, efficiency is very important. Whereas the democratic element comes in especially in the implementing measures where committees take part and member states experts participate. For delegated acts, it can be heavily criticized because it happens in-house. Essentially, the Commission has an enormous large power to do as it pleases it even if it is asks various experts or member states representatives or others. It is the Commission and the Commission only that passes those delegated acts. And the scrutiny is mostly of political nature and just as we saw with the food additive issue for instance, it is either everything or nothing so that is why it is called ‘a nuclear option’. For delegated acts, there is a much less democratic element in it and that is why the choice between the two procedures is so important. Because who has the upper hand? Who has more influence? Is it the Commission, is it the member states, is it the Parliament? Maybe David you want to share a few thoughts yourself.

(David) Just to add, I think it is also a question more fundamentally about the legitimacy of the Commission and all that it does. In that it does not have any direct elections to it and therefore, there is a question over its legitimacy. Sometimes it is handy for the member states to actually have this kind of system because if we take the olive oil example, you would probably not find any member states who would say“we really think this is a great idea” but what they can do is only blame the Commission. Whereas they actually sat in the Committee and either voted for it or did not vote against it anyway. So it can be helpful for the member states to do something they want to do but nothing unpopular and in that case they can blame it on the Commission and complain about the lack of legitimacy. It is just one of those political games, I think.

So, the unelected Commission has power, lots of power.

The EU Parliament and Council have some oversight of the Commission.

As far as EU Regulations are concerned the member states elected Government has NO power.......NO POWER to resist them.

Does that make sense now dumbkopf.

 

[jgmcdee]

the unelected Commission

As far as I am aware each member of the commission is nominated by a nation, so unless I'm missing something it's another appointment in the same way as national ministerial or diplomatic appointments are made. If you're unhappy about not having a say in the makeup of the commission your gripe should be with the UK government, as they don't allow you to have a say in their nomination, rather than the EC itself.

 

[pastafarian]

This remains to be seen. But I cannot see how you can cherry pick which freedoms as it's not fair on every other member. And it's not a case of anyone kicking someone out. More the Swiss deciding if the membership rules are for them or not. At the end of the day, no one is forced the be in the EU or the extended trading block.

And there lies the crux of the debate about the The EU.

It is the assumption by the EU we in Europe are all the same,culturally,socially,economically,when we clearly are not.
If the EU was open to more "cherry picking" by nations to be in or out on issues that nations perceived to be for or against their own national interest it might not have such a large anti thinking against it and might be more popular

Can you give me a good valid reason why the EU members shouldnt be able to cherry pick ideas?
What is so unfair about a nation saying i dont like that idea?

 

[Alex Alex Dawson oo! oo!]

And there lies the crux of the debate about the The EU.

It is the assumption by the EU we in Europe are all the same,culturally,socially,economically,when we clearly are not.
If the EU was open to more "cherry picking" by nations to be in or out on issues that nations perceived to be for or against their own national interest it might not have such a large anti thinking against it and might be more popular

Can you give me a good valid reason why the EU members shouldnt be able to cherry pick ideas?
What is so unfair about a nation saying i dont like that idea?

HT's referring here to the free movement of goods, services, capital and people within the EU single market; basically four of the founding principles of the EU back in 1957. If any member of the EU (or EEA) now doesn't like the idea and cannot convince the other member states that the rules should be so changed for all then they I guess they should leave.

 

[pastafarian]

HT's referring here to the free movement of goods, services, capital and people within the EU single market; basically four of the founding principles of the EU back in 1957. If any member of the EU (or EEA) now doesn't like the idea and cannot convince the other member states that the rules should be so changed for all then they I guess they should leave.

i totally agree

If you dont like the criteria time to opt out and say no,finally at last the British people will be able to have a vote and decide on how they feel about the EU in its current form.

now please explain to me how the Swiss have done exactly this,disagreed with a EU principle in a referendum yet have been told this means nothing as they have bilateral treaties they have signed and must adhere to and respect........how on earth is this respecting the democracy of a sovereign nation?

 

[Alex Alex Dawson oo! oo!]

Here's a webinar for you on the powers of the unelected EU Commission post Lisbon Treaty.....

http://www.eu-academy.eu/freeresources/eu-regulatory-affairs-implementing-delegated-acts/

Here's a debate with the 2 experts in connection with democratic legitimacy and the power of the Commission.


Question:Why can the Commission and its agencies take decisions since it is a non-elected body and even taken into account the consultations, this does not look good from a democracy and transparency point of view?

(András) It is absolutely not my task to defend the Commission but in terms of the governance nature of the EU, it makes sense that there is an administrative and executive body just like any government agency which with sufficient and unbiased scientific input from neutral experts such as in the EFSA or in the Medicines Agency or any other EU agency eventually it makes policy under the necessary safeguards. Now, where the system can certainly be criticized is whether the safeguards are sufficient. Because it is the eternal dilemma between efficiency and democracy and when it comes to these technical measures, efficiency is very important. Whereas the democratic element comes in especially in the implementing measures where committees take part and member states experts participate. For delegated acts, it can be heavily criticized because it happens in-house. Essentially, the Commission has an enormous large power to do as it pleases it even if it is asks various experts or member states representatives or others. It is the Commission and the Commission only that passes those delegated acts. And the scrutiny is mostly of political nature and just as we saw with the food additive issue for instance, it is either everything or nothing so that is why it is called ‘a nuclear option’. For delegated acts, there is a much less democratic element in it and that is why the choice between the two procedures is so important. Because who has the upper hand? Who has more influence? Is it the Commission, is it the member states, is it the Parliament? Maybe David you want to share a few thoughts yourself.

(David) Just to add, I think it is also a question more fundamentally about the legitimacy of the Commission and all that it does. In that it does not have any direct elections to it and therefore, there is a question over its legitimacy. Sometimes it is handy for the member states to actually have this kind of system because if we take the olive oil example, you would probably not find any member states who would say“we really think this is a great idea” but what they can do is only blame the Commission. Whereas they actually sat in the Committee and either voted for it or did not vote against it anyway. So it can be helpful for the member states to do something they want to do but nothing unpopular and in that case they can blame it on the Commission and complain about the lack of legitimacy. It is just one of those political games, I think.

So, the unelected Commission has power, lots of power.

The EU Parliament and Council have some oversight of the Commission.

As far as EU Regulations are concerned the member states elected Government has NO power.......NO POWER to resist them.

Does that make sense now dumbkopf.

This quotation seems to be part of a discussion on Delegated Acts - ie where one of both of the two elected co-legislators of the EU (the Council or European Parliament) has delegated preparation and implementation of legislation to the Commission.

1) How the delegation takes place and its scope is decided by the legislator(s) on a case by case basis.
2) The Council appoints its own representatives/experts to be involved in the day to day work on the legislation with the Commission.
3) The Parliament appoints its own representatives/experts to be involved in the day to day work on the legislation with the Commission.
4) When the work is complete then either the Council or Parliament may reject/veto the Commission's proposals or revoke the delegation, I believe they have two months to do this.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Here's a webinar for you on the powers of the unelected EU Commission post Lisbon Treaty.....

http://www.eu-academy.eu/freeresources/eu-regulatory-affairs-implementing-delegated-acts/

Here's a debate with the 2 experts in connection with democratic legitimacy and the power of the Commission.


Question:Why can the Commission and its agencies take decisions since it is a non-elected body and even taken into account the consultations, this does not look good from a democracy and transparency point of view?

(András) It is absolutely not my task to defend the Commission but in terms of the governance nature of the EU, it makes sense that there is an administrative and executive body just like any government agency which with sufficient and unbiased scientific input from neutral experts such as in the EFSA or in the Medicines Agency or any other EU agency eventually it makes policy under the necessary safeguards. Now, where the system can certainly be criticized is whether the safeguards are sufficient. Because it is the eternal dilemma between efficiency and democracy and when it comes to these technical measures, efficiency is very important. Whereas the democratic element comes in especially in the implementing measures where committees take part and member states experts participate. For delegated acts, it can be heavily criticized because it happens in-house. Essentially, the Commission has an enormous large power to do as it pleases it even if it is asks various experts or member states representatives or others. It is the Commission and the Commission only that passes those delegated acts. And the scrutiny is mostly of political nature and just as we saw with the food additive issue for instance, it is either everything or nothing so that is why it is called ‘a nuclear option’. For delegated acts, there is a much less democratic element in it and that is why the choice between the two procedures is so important. Because who has the upper hand? Who has more influence? Is it the Commission, is it the member states, is it the Parliament? Maybe David you want to share a few thoughts yourself.

(David) Just to add, I think it is also a question more fundamentally about the legitimacy of the Commission and all that it does. In that it does not have any direct elections to it and therefore, there is a question over its legitimacy. Sometimes it is handy for the member states to actually have this kind of system because if we take the olive oil example, you would probably not find any member states who would say“we really think this is a great idea” but what they can do is only blame the Commission. Whereas they actually sat in the Committee and either voted for it or did not vote against it anyway. So it can be helpful for the member states to do something they want to do but nothing unpopular and in that case they can blame it on the Commission and complain about the lack of legitimacy. It is just one of those political games, I think.

So, the unelected Commission has power, lots of power.

The EU Parliament and Council have some oversight of the Commission.

As far as EU Regulations are concerned the member states elected Government has NO power.......NO POWER to resist them.

Does that make sense now dumbkopf.

The Commission cannot do anything outside of what it is asked to do by the Council or the MEPs. And even then the Council and MEPs have a final say. It therefore has no power. The clues are there in the words commission and delegated. Even your paste alludes to this.

Looking at it another way (as you're seemingly blinded by something) the best example you can find of this supposedly all powerful, crazed autonomous machine which no one can stop....... is a decision on olive oil? Have I got this right?

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

This quotation seems to be part of a discussion on Delegated Acts - ie where one of both of the two elected co-legislators of the EU (the Council or European Parliament) has delegated preparation and implementation of legislation to the Commission.

1) How the delegation takes place and its scope is decided by the legislator(s) on a case by case basis.
2) The Council appoints its own representatives/experts to be involved in the day to day work on the legislation with the Commission.
3) The Parliament appoints its own representatives/experts to be involved in the day to day work on the legislation with the Commission.
4) When the work is complete then either the Council or Parliament may reject/veto the Commission's proposals or revoke the delegation, I believe they have two months to do this.

Exactly my point above. The Commission can only act on what it's asked to do. I guess that's why they call it the Commission? I see it as being a very similar body to UK advisory panels and boards and expert committees etc.

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

i totally agree

If you dont like the criteria time to opt out and say no,finally at last the British people will be able to have a vote and decide on how they feel about the EU in its current form.

now please explain to me how the Swiss have done exactly this,disagreed with a EU principle in a referendum yet have been told this means nothing as they have bilateral treaties they have signed and must adhere to and respect........how on earth is this respecting the democracy of a sovereign nation?

I think the clue is in the bilateral treaties bit. If you have signed a treaty and don't like it, you need to negotiate your way out of it.

 

[beorhthelm]

Exactly my point above. The Commission can only act on what it's asked to do. I guess that's why they call it the Commission?

the European Commission also drafts all new legislation. unlike the European Parliament that, while it can talk around a subject and produce white papers and such, cannot write new legislation. its a talking shop, at best has revisioning powers. in the UK model its equivilent to the Lords in its power.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

the European Commission also drafts all new legislation. unlike the European Parliament that, while it can talk around a subject and produce white papers and such, cannot write new legislation. its a talking shop, at best has revisioning powers. in the UK model its equivilent to the Lords in its power.

Agree. And this is no secret so why anyone thinks different really baffles me. I'm happy for folk to think the EU doesn't work etc but please base the argument on fact and not just make stuff up or dredge the further reaches of the web for bizarre conversations about olive oil between two randoms.

 

[Chicken Run]

Really? You don't know? Ffs.

Since you were obviously being a back to front and being belligerent i have established the below.

Technically, there is no such thing as the "EU" passport. What is commonly referred to as an "EU" passport is a passport from one of the European Union member states such as France or Germany which has the European Union symbol on it.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Since you were obviously being a back to front and being belligerent i have established the below.

Technically, there is no such thing as the "EU" passport. What is commonly referred to as an "EU" passport is a passport from one of the European Union member states such as France or Germany which has the European Union symbol on it.

He knew that but it doesn't suit his aim of being European rather than British ( or even German ).