Current Affairs The Labour Party

[Bruce Wayne]

it was advisory, degs.

what went wrong are three things:

- Team Brexit had (and still have) no coherent plan if the referendum went their way.
- The (unelected) EU Presidents were/are being very difficult.
- The media have been on Project Fear overdrive, sowing even more division amongst the folk then there was before.

Smartest guy in the world, yet doesn't know this rather basic fact. The President of the European Commission (Juncker) is nominated by the European Council (who, lest we forget, are the elected heads of the 28 member states), before then being voted on by the European parliament, who have the final approval/veto on the appointment.

The President of the European Council (Tusk) is selected by the elected heads of the 28 member states. If you want to get pedantic and say we don't vote for them, then we don't vote for the prime minister either, as they're chosen in the same way by their party.

The President of the European Parliament (Tajani) is elected from MEPs.

So all three presidents in the EU are chosen by elected representatives.

https://europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/presidents_en has all you need to know.

 

[degsy]

OK then, without respect you are talking through your backside.

Thought that was the main purpose of GOT in general and this thread in particular
(@GrandOldTeam or have I had the wrong end of the stick all this time)

 

[tsubaki]

Smartest guy in the world, yet doesn't know this rather basic fact. The President of the European Commission (Juncker) is nominated by the European Council (who, lest we forget, are the elected heads of the 28 member states), before then being voted on by the European parliament, who have the final approval/veto on the appointment.

The President of the European Council (Tusk) is selected by the elected heads of the 28 member states. If you want to get pedantic and say we don't vote for them, then we don't vote for the prime minister either, as they're chosen in the same way by their party.

The President of the European Parliament (Tajani) is elected from MEPs.

So all three presidents in the EU are chosen by elected representatives.

https://europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/presidents_en has all you need to know.

That is more than a bit disengenous Bruce. The current process for the selection of the President of the Commission is based an agreement between parties that the largest party after the 2014 election (not who controls the Parliament as it is here), which is why Juncker and Tusk are Presidents despite the EPP only winning 29% of the seats (and only having 8 of the 28 EC heads of state affiliated to it). Tajani has more democratic legitimacy than they do, but it is still a bit much to describe him as "elected".

 

[dholliday]

Smartest guy in the world, yet doesn't know this rather basic fact. The President of the European Commission (Juncker) is nominated by the European Council (who, lest we forget, are the elected heads of the 28 member states), before then being voted on by the European parliament, who have the final approval/veto on the appointment.

The President of the European Council (Tusk) is selected by the elected heads of the 28 member states. If you want to get pedantic and say we don't vote for them, then we don't vote for the prime minister either, as they're chosen in the same way by their party.

The President of the European Parliament (Tajani) is elected from MEPs.

So all three presidents in the EU are chosen by elected representatives.

https://europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/presidents_en has all you need to know.

i know all that. the people didn't elect them, hence 'unelected' in the eyes of the people. hence Brexit.

EU reform means EU chiefs would be elected by the people.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

That is more than a bit disengenous Bruce. The current process for the selection of the President of the Commission is based an agreement between parties that the largest party after the 2014 election (not who controls the Parliament as it is here), which is why Juncker and Tusk are Presidents despite the EPP only winning 29% of the seats (and only having 8 of the 28 EC heads of state affiliated to it). Tajani has more democratic legitimacy than they do, but it is still a bit much to describe him as "elected".

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/...mission-president-and-commissioners-appointed

one of the first tasks of an incoming Parliament is to elect a new President of the European Commission (the EU’s executive body). Member states nominate a candidate for the post, but in doing so they must take account of the European election results. Moreover, Parliament needs to approve the new Commission President by an absolute majority (half of the existing MEPs plus one). If the candidate doesn’t obtain the required majority, the member states need to propose another candidate within a month's time (European Council acting by qualified majority).

 

[Bruce Wayne]

i know all that. the people didn't elect them, hence 'unelected' in the eyes of the people. hence Brexit.

EU reform means EU chiefs would be elected by the people.

They are selected by elected officials, in just the same way as heads of the civil service are selected by elected officials. It's no different.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

https://www.economist.com/the-econo...efer-to-eu-officials-as-unelected-bureaucrats explains things nicely.

 

[tsubaki]

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/...mission-president-and-commissioners-appointed

https://www.politico.eu/article/spi...-leaders-brace-for-clash-over-2019-elections/

 

[dholliday]

They are selected by elected officials, in just the same way as heads of the civil service are selected by elected officials. It's no different.

EU Presidents should be voted for directly by the people as they have direct influence on entire peoples. That is part of the will of the people and one of the reasons for Brexit. They are until then effectively unelected Heads of State (comparable with China's system...hence all the criticism).

 

[tsubaki]

EU Presidents should be voted for directly by the people as they have direct influence on entire peoples. That is part of the will of the people and one of the reasons for Brexit. They are until then effectively unelected Heads of State (comparable with China's system...hence all the criticism).

TBH I think they’d be better off with the leader of the party that controls the Parliament (either directly or via coalition) being the political leader, with a ceremonial head of state that could be above politics. I’d even, and only half jokingly, say that the group of remaining monarchs would suffice for this.

 

[dholliday]

TBH I think they’d be better off with the leader of the party that controls the Parliament (either directly or via coalition) being the political leader, with a ceremonial head of state that could be above politics. I’d even, and only half jokingly, say that the group of remaining monarchs would suffice for this.

interesting...or a one-year rota where every EU nation-chief gets a go, with all three presidential positions rotating with. It's the least logistically-complex option which satisfies the will of the people that they directly vote for EU Presidents. It's fair as it's a rota ( so even Orban gets a go) and to protect against administrative chaos the departments working with the EU presidents would remain fairly constant. Nationally during rota-year the deputy fills in.

I think most EU voters would feel ok with such an option.

Currently, with the persistent arrogance that comes from Juncker, Tusk and previously Schulze the cries for reform will not just come from blighty.

 

[catcherintherye]

He is vastly underrated as all things Parlimentarian, not sure if that's a product of tribalism, I don't like what you stand for therefore I don't like you full stop. Or the general dumbing down of politics where looking good with a smart sound bite will suffice these days. Probably a bit of both.

The problem is he compounds the commenteriat from right all the way through to centre left. They basically assume left ideas are unpopular and throw in an incompetent leader so it must all be terrible. They also assume all working class people are racist, sexist and hate the Irish, so when they can prove Corbyn is none of those things is further cements that viewpoint. Every misjudgement they have stems from this misunderstanding of British society.

They then desperately try to find evidence to fit their agenda. Despite the fact that in 2 years Corbyn has forced more government defeats that Cameron, Miliband, Howard, Duncan Smith, Hague, Blair and John Smith did in about 25 is discarded. They have no business with telling the truth. It's an awful opposition. They rarely quantify what "awful" actually means, what they are measuring it too.

Unfortunately, some people get carried along with it and parrot the rubbish too. It's not their fault per se, but people should have greater critical faculties.

 

[dholliday]

Unfortunately, some people get carried along with it and parrot the rubbish too. It's not their fault per se, but people should have greater critical faculties.

haha been saying same thing for the longest time.

anecdote: i caught a family member reading the news and it consisted only of reading the headlines & standfirst, then quickly forming a reactive opinion, then jumping to the next clickbait-headline.

when i read i then search other sources to see how others are reporting on the same thing...i expect the majority aren't arsed enough to do that.

 

[tsubaki]

The problem is he compounds the commenteriat from right all the way through to centre left. They basically assume left ideas are unpopular and throw in an incompetent leader so it must all be terrible. They also assume all working class people are racist, sexist and hate the Irish, so when they can prove Corbyn is none of those things is further cements that viewpoint. Every misjudgement they have stems from this misunderstanding of British society.

They then desperately try to find evidence to fit their agenda. Despite the fact that in 2 years Corbyn has forced more government defeats that Cameron, Miliband, Howard, Duncan Smith, Hague, Blair and John Smith did in about 25 is discarded. They have no business with telling the truth. It's an awful opposition. They rarely quantify what "awful" actually means, what they are measuring it too.

Unfortunately, some people get carried along with it and parrot the rubbish too. It's not their fault per se, but people should have greater critical faculties.

Couldn't agree more with this.

 

[peteblue]

The young don’t have a monopoly on naivety and the old don’t have a monopoly on wisdom.

They do....