Democracy EU style.

[Damocles]

It depends what you think 'work properly' would mean. It has been set up so that the home governments remain firmly in control. And despite what they say about 'giving up the veto' it is still run by vetos. You just have to get a few countries to agree with you and you can still effectively maintain a veto.

I would be very happy to see the parliament strengthened. But not only would this have to be be done against the wishes of the governments who presently have vetoes, it would also have to be done against the wishes of the anti-EU faction, who do not want to see any additional powers going to Europe. Perhaps especially if that would make the system work better. Still, an elected president would help.

Um, no. Hitler had his tanks all over France. And he was shooting at us. When Sadam did the same we quite rightly pushed him back into his box.

Adam, hope you did ok with father christmas.

 

[david and julie]

Off course there is always the obvious answer to all this EU infighting. You forgot to mention that one though.

Doesn't the constitution put paid to individual veto's?

 

[Damocles]

I havn't read it. Have you? As I understand it, no it does not.

 

[david and julie]

Damocles you have said all of this about the veto in the EU, just in this thread alone and you wonder why we think you contradict yourself.
Off course your "you got me wrong words are there too" highlighted in each quote.

In reality the EU almost always runs by veto. The only things which get through are those unobjectionable to every government.

It depends what you think 'work properly' would mean. It has been set up so that the home governments remain firmly in control. And despite what they say about 'giving up the veto' it is still run by vetos. You just have to get a few countries to agree with you and you can still effectively maintain a veto.

I havn't read it. Have you? As I understand it, no it does not.

You have told us here the veto won't change, home governments remain in control and that you haven't read about the constitution even though you describe how the new majority voting will work. Here is the part you haven't read about but guessed correctly. Almost word for word.

In the EU Constitution a system of double majority is proposed. This means that there shall be 55 % of the member states representing 65% of the population of the EU to adopt an act. At least 4 countries are needed to block a decision while at least 15 countries must back up a decision for it to come into force. Including the population factor mainly benefits the bigger countries while the "one country one vote" element benefits the smaller countries. This system makes it easier to take decisions. 72 % of the member states and 65 % of the population is needed when the proposal does not need a Commission initiative.

You said our position doesn't change with the constitution even though we will need 4 states to veto whereas now we can do it alone. The highlighted parts will help you change your definition of what you meant.

I have underlined the bottom line as I don't understand what it means. I presume in the light of our Peter Madleson chat that the commision can do what they like anyway.

 

[Damocles]

It does not always run by veto. Sometimes everyone agrees.

It has reached the point where it is very difficult indeed to get agreement from everybody so most want a system where a large majority is needed. It remains possibly for a group of countries to agree to work together and create a veto on anything.

There is no absolute veto right now. Some things are my majority of a certain proportion. In other areas we have a special reserved veto of our very own. You have only posted the main principle of the new system. The EU is a very firm believer in the slogan, 'it is the exceptions which prove the rules'.

 

[kendor]

Remember that Pakistan is not a poor country far from it, as stated earlier more jobs went in britain because of imports, but this will happen as things need to be tweaked as an when needed, ok it's hard if you are one of those unemployed but safeguards need to be there in all member countries to protect the workforce such as alternate work or redundancy to assist whilst alternative work is found. Economics is such a complicated animal especially controlling it over such varied monetary systems. this is why some suffer for a while while others will prosper but the end result must be to make it equal and of course this will take a great deal of time especially while we all hang on to this sovereignty issue, once total control is in place then these monetary decisions will be more efficient in their exercise.
I know some will have a go about that statement but if sovereignty is more important to you than a united europe then fair enough you will never be happy.

Many pick up on the shortfalls of the european commisions abilities at the time being but it is still a growing child and it may take another 100 years to put it right but only if given a chance to do so.

 

[Big_Spark]

The way it should work, IMHO, is thus.

The people of an individual member state elects their MP's, European parliamentarials (to represent their interests in Europe) and their Prime Minister.

Each Prime Minister then represents the interests of his state in a European wide Parliament that is headed by a Politician elected as President (or whatever you want to call them) by the People of all member states.

So effectively you would have..

Local Government-->National Government--->EU Government

Local MP's would answer to State Politicians

Elected European Parliamentarians would answer to The EU Government that would be headed by the elected President.


The multi-layered system the EU uses at the momnent is cumbersome and leads to inordinate wastage, stupid legislation and disharmony amongst members.

This is a rather over-simplified way of explaining it....apologies, but I think it is obvious this is NOT how the system currently works!!

 

[david and julie]

Engineer are you saying you would like to see the back of the undemocratic, appointed commission? when raising this thread it wasn't so much Pakistan and aid that bothered me, it was the way the unelected can ignore the elected. It smacks of dictatorship, but then it would do because it is! That Peter Mandleson can ride roughshod over the elected MEP's should set everyones alarm bell ringing, anti or pro, its wrong.

 

[Big_Spark]

D&J..I think that from previous posts my position on Europe is clear.

I am all for a United Europe, one that it integrated and does not work against, but for all of it's residents for the good of those residents.

Consequently I am an unashamed democrat, and the sooner the unelected from all Governments are eradicated the better this world will be.

And I don't see why people bring Pakistan into a debate on Europe, I couldn't give a rats arse about the place in the scheme of things. They have no say in Europe, and we should have no say in Pakistan..their country, let them make it something or screw it up without our interference.

 

[david and julie]

Pakistan hasn't been brought into the debate and you have answered my question anyway.

Consequently I am an unashamed democrat, and the sooner the unelected from all Governments are eradicated the better this world will be.

I agree with you, but the problem is the constitution doesn't change any of this, indeed if anything it makes it even worse as they will then have more power. Once they have EU military and a proper police force it will be impossible to change anything. At that point the individual memberstates will mean nothing, what is perceived as good for EU as a whole, by the unelected elite, is all that will matter to them.

 

[Damocles]

The reason the EU is run by an unelected commission is because the separate governments wanted to keep very firm control over it. Instead of doing something radical like having the commissioners elected by the people every 5 years, they chose to appoint them. That way there was no danger of the people voting against the government.

People go on about how Britain is relinquishing control to an unrepresentative organisation but the reality is exactly the opposite. It has always been designed for each member government to maintain the absolute maximum personal control.

If the British government wanted to have elected commisioners it could always run an election and then put the winner forward as its commission candidate. That would be interesting.

 

[Freddie]

5 years is too long any way, same as 4 years, if they havent done anything that they say they will after 12 months we should have a vote of no confidence to stop them carrying on with their term in office.

Why should a politician get a job for up to 5 years gaurenteed, you and i dont

 

[Big_Spark]

Freddie, unfortunatetly a shorter period is not practical either for way too many reasons to list here.

I personally would have our elections changed to be every 7 years, but those currently in office would ALL be barred from taking part in the next election if they were a Minister.