Current Affairs EU In or Out
- Thread starter micknick
- Start date
- Status
Foot Long Hot Dog
Player Valuation: A packet of pork scratchings
peteblue
Welcome back Wayne
Top of my head. Our Port Operators thought it was pretty major......or don’t they count....
Foot Long Hot Dog
Player Valuation: A packet of pork scratchings
It’s not a major decision, you should probably try again.
The port operators might do, but presumably they didn't manage to lobby the government successfully otherwise it would have not passed, just like every other EU regulation? Just as regulations are passed in the UK by the government, they welcome input from various sources beforehand, but the ultimate decision rests with the politicians. It's no different with the EU.
Foot Long Hot Dog
Player Valuation: A packet of pork scratchings
LBC have just done a survey of Leave voters current opinions.
51% of them said they’d be happy if the U.K. went into recession after Brexit.
70% of Leave voting Tories thought that Brexit was more important than having a Conservative Govt.
10% of them thought that a true Brexit would see all EU migrants being deported.
Discuss.
51% of them said they’d be happy if the U.K. went into recession after Brexit.
70% of Leave voting Tories thought that Brexit was more important than having a Conservative Govt.
10% of them thought that a true Brexit would see all EU migrants being deported.
Discuss.
My father always said that 50% of the population are shy disaster Marxists.
Viva la revolution.
The fact that so few people have changed their mind, despite the tremendous growth in not only evidence about what the EU is/isn't, but also what Brexit might involve, is arguably the biggest proof of Danny Kahneman's work imaginable.
I think with hindsight looking at the whole Brexit campaign that having :
“Why not revoke The Port Services Regulations and run our own port regulations”
On the side of a bus May even have been what swung it .
peteblue
Welcome back Wayne
From the EU Observer......
“Public trust in the European Commission was put at risk when, Martin Selmayr, a key aid of the institution's president, Jean-Claude Juncker, became its top EU civil servant.
Selmayr's stealth promotion as European Commission secretary-general was described on Tuesday (4 September) by European ombudsman, Emily O'Reilly, as a case of maladministration following her review of thousands of pages of commission internal documents.
"All of this risked jeopardising the hard-won record of high EU administrative standards and consequently, the public trust," she said in a statement.
O'Reilly, who oversees good governance of the EU institutions, looked into the matter on the back of complaints of cronyism given the secretive events leading to Selmayr's sudden and surprise promotion.
The German former lawyer and former commission spokesman had orchestrated Juncker's successful campaign to be selected as president of the commission in 2014, became his chief of staff, and was then elevated to secretary general on 21 February this year.
The European Parliament said Selmayr's promotion "could be viewed as a coup-like action which stretched and possibly even overstretched the limits of the law."
Fears mounted that the credibility of the EU institution in its broader battles to ensure rule of law elsewhere, for instance in Poland, had been undermined.
Concerns were also raised that the promotion provided cannon fodder for far-right and populist groups.
But Juncker then threatened to step down if Selmayr was forced to resign in what one MEP described as "blackmail".
What happened?
The outgoing secretary general had decided to retire, in a move only known by Selmayr and Juncker. The vacancy for the post was never published meaning, no other candidates could apply.
But before taking up the post, Selmayr first had to become deputy secretary general.
On 21 February 2018, all EU commissioners in a meeting known as the college of commissioners approved his appointment as deputy.
At that moment, it was announced the secretary general post was vacant because the incumbent had decided to retire.
A second candidate had been put forward but then suddenly withdrew, making way for Selmayr. Selmayr then filled the empty seat minutes later.
The commission says it did nothing wrong and had followed the recruitment process "religiously".
O'Reilly disagrees.
"The college of commissioners collectively is responsible for the maladministration in this case. It is extraordinary that no commissioner seemed to question the secretary general appointment procedure, which in the end raised valid widespread concerns," she said.
Maladministration
O'Reilly identified four big issues.
First, the commission failed to take measures to avoid a conflict of interest given Selmayr's involvement leading to the creation of the vacancy notice for deputy secretary general.
Second, it failed to follow rules of procedure in the composition of a committee for the selection of the deputy.
Third, the deputy post was not a genuine vacancy given it was used to springboard Selmayr.
Fourth, the retirement of the outgoing secretary general was kept secret and created an artificial urgency for his replacement.
She says the commission needs to develop a specific and separate appointment procedure for its secretary-general to prevent a repeat of this happening.
"The procedure should include publishing a vacancy notice, placing it on the agenda of the weekly commissioners' meeting and also including external experts in the consultative committee for the appointment," she said”
And this is the democratic bureaucracy that many of you love and want. It’s a bunch of self serving crooks.....
“Public trust in the European Commission was put at risk when, Martin Selmayr, a key aid of the institution's president, Jean-Claude Juncker, became its top EU civil servant.
Selmayr's stealth promotion as European Commission secretary-general was described on Tuesday (4 September) by European ombudsman, Emily O'Reilly, as a case of maladministration following her review of thousands of pages of commission internal documents.
"All of this risked jeopardising the hard-won record of high EU administrative standards and consequently, the public trust," she said in a statement.
O'Reilly, who oversees good governance of the EU institutions, looked into the matter on the back of complaints of cronyism given the secretive events leading to Selmayr's sudden and surprise promotion.
The German former lawyer and former commission spokesman had orchestrated Juncker's successful campaign to be selected as president of the commission in 2014, became his chief of staff, and was then elevated to secretary general on 21 February this year.
The European Parliament said Selmayr's promotion "could be viewed as a coup-like action which stretched and possibly even overstretched the limits of the law."
Fears mounted that the credibility of the EU institution in its broader battles to ensure rule of law elsewhere, for instance in Poland, had been undermined.
Concerns were also raised that the promotion provided cannon fodder for far-right and populist groups.
But Juncker then threatened to step down if Selmayr was forced to resign in what one MEP described as "blackmail".
What happened?
The outgoing secretary general had decided to retire, in a move only known by Selmayr and Juncker. The vacancy for the post was never published meaning, no other candidates could apply.
But before taking up the post, Selmayr first had to become deputy secretary general.
On 21 February 2018, all EU commissioners in a meeting known as the college of commissioners approved his appointment as deputy.
At that moment, it was announced the secretary general post was vacant because the incumbent had decided to retire.
A second candidate had been put forward but then suddenly withdrew, making way for Selmayr. Selmayr then filled the empty seat minutes later.
The commission says it did nothing wrong and had followed the recruitment process "religiously".
O'Reilly disagrees.
"The college of commissioners collectively is responsible for the maladministration in this case. It is extraordinary that no commissioner seemed to question the secretary general appointment procedure, which in the end raised valid widespread concerns," she said.
Maladministration
O'Reilly identified four big issues.
First, the commission failed to take measures to avoid a conflict of interest given Selmayr's involvement leading to the creation of the vacancy notice for deputy secretary general.
Second, it failed to follow rules of procedure in the composition of a committee for the selection of the deputy.
Third, the deputy post was not a genuine vacancy given it was used to springboard Selmayr.
Fourth, the retirement of the outgoing secretary general was kept secret and created an artificial urgency for his replacement.
She says the commission needs to develop a specific and separate appointment procedure for its secretary-general to prevent a repeat of this happening.
"The procedure should include publishing a vacancy notice, placing it on the agenda of the weekly commissioners' meeting and also including external experts in the consultative committee for the appointment," she said”
And this is the democratic bureaucracy that many of you love and want. It’s a bunch of self serving crooks.....
peteblue
Welcome back Wayne
FLHD asked for one example and I gave him one. Whether it is right or not I have no opinion.....
peteblue
Welcome back Wayne
It’s not quite the same though Bruce. The EU is a bit bigger and there are many different countries with their own way of managing things. The EU wants to harmonise, which means either all or some countries will have something applied to them, even if it is against their best interests in the name of uniformity. Sometimes it’s best not to over-regulate.....
peteblue
Welcome back Wayne
You see it in every thread tbh.....
I don't think even the most fervent remainer would say the EU is in any way perfect though Pete, merely that we get an awful lot out of membership.
You were talking about an example of where the EU imposed something upon us that the UK government didn't want, but that isn't such an example, as the UK government agreed to the regulation. Some in the UK port industry perhaps don't, but in our democracy, legislation is passed by the government, not by companies, hence why companies spend so much on lobbying. In this instance, the industry clearly weren't persuasive enough, as whilst the European Parliament stopped the first draft of the bill, it passed after amendments were made.
That is the case for any international agreements though Pete. Take any trade arrangement today and there will be agreements in there regarding standards that will influence local producers. That's just how things are in a globalised world.
peteblue
Welcome back Wayne
I think the U.K. voted against the EU regulation.....
- Status