The European Commission is effectively a cabinet, which everyone complains about. The President of the Commission is suggested by the European Council and agreed upon by the European Parliament, the rest of the members proposed by the Council Of The European Union. It is non-executive in powers, so nothing like the proposed super-government Westminster cabinet in terms of powers, not even the current "need to defer to parliament" cabinet executive, as they need the EP/etc to listen to them, not just ratify.
The European Council is composed of the Heads Of States/Government, who vary by their way they attain that power but are mostly voted in by the democratic process that the entirety of their home state already uses. (Our HoG isn't, please note!)
The European Parliament is an elected body, as per the Westminster one, with a few (arguably better) small differences to the process.
The Council Of The European Union consists of one designated minister for every state, however so those ministers are put forward.
The European Court Of Justice is composed of one representative judge from each state, but I'm no expert on how every state stuffs its judiciary.
The European Central Bank is administrative, not legislative, and composed of term-limited individuals recommended for their financial expertise and integrity by the national governments, and is much derided but is pretty much nothing like as bad as painted and irrelevant here except for completeness.
As is the European Court Of Auditors, whose composition is dictated by the Council and function is not even remotely legislative.
So, which set of bureaucrats (that, where they count, aint even bureaucrats!) has any more undue relative power than this group of people we propose to give such power to in the UK.
Lol thought you were rusin me for a sec there
Serious reply:
EU commission is not a cabinet as the UK would understand it, as the EU commission is incredibly odd in selection, election and function when comparing a Union Commissioner to a British Cabinet Minister. Every Cabinet Minister in the UK has been elected by their constituency and selected by the Prime Minister, with obvious exception to the Leader of the House of Lords. They can be appointed or dismissed at a moment's notice on advice of the PM but otherwise have no term limit on service, are accountable to Parliament with Parliament being able to force the entire cabinet's resignation and in less extreme measures, scrutinize and oppose them in the House of Commons. The Cabinet Ministers form the executive (though not ultimate authority) and through their membership of the House of Commons, also have legislative powers. This is a power they do not hold exclusively against Parliament, but a power Parliament holds which they share in by being themselves members of Parliament. The Monarch is the head of the state & the armed forces, the Prime Minister is de facto head of the government.
The European Commission is executive in powers, with direct responsibilities including the administration and implementation of EU and community policies and legislation, including formulation and spending of the budget, initiation and drafting of community legislation, enforcement of EU and community law, representation of the EU and the communities at the international level, including negotiation of international treaties - this was what really got me thinking you were either rused yourself or trying to ruse me. Calling elected ministers unelected bureaucrats, calling commissioners non-executives, you're trying to ruse me m8 with demoralization b8
The European Commission
1. The Commission shall promote the general interest of the Union and take appropriate initiatives to that end. It shall ensure the application of the Constitution, and measures adopted by the
institutions pursuant to the Constitution. It shall oversee the application of Union law under the control of the Court of Justice of the European Union. It shall execute the budget and manage
programmes. It shall exercise coordinating, executive and management functions, as laid down in the Constitution. With the exception of the common foreign and security policy, and other cases
provided for in the Constitution, it shall ensure the Union's external representation. It shall initiate the Union's annual and multiannual programming with a view to achieving interinstitutional
agreements.
From the Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe. AKA The Lisbon Treaty. This fucking treaty was the EU Constitution and yet it was marketed as a series of amendments to existing Treaty, thus no nation in Europe was given a public vote on whether their country would surrender their sovereignty, with exception
to Ireland whom the EU forced to revote because they voted wrong. That shit is eye burningly haram.
The European Council is incomparable with most political organizations in the world, if not all of them. Closest thing I can think of is the United Nations Security Council. The European Parliament is an elected body, as per the Westminster one, with the notable small difference of being useless.
The Houses of Commons (or the Westminster Parliament) is the legislative authority of the UK. It alone decides what rate taxes are set & to whom, to which departments and projects funding is allocated or withdrawn, it acts without any judicial review owing to our unwritten constitution, it not only scrutinizes, debates and approves or declines legislature - it is the body of government that proposes legislature. Each MP proposes laws that will rule the lives of their constituents with the knowledge that their constituency voted for them to represent them. The European Parliament's powers include being allowed to examine Presidential Candidates of the Commission proposed by the Council or approve legislature proposed by the Commission, lacking any ability to represent their own constituencies - made worse, given that each Commissioner is sworn to represent the EU's interests, and not their country's interests.
In regards to the European Council, I am actually rather appreciative of them!
The vote in favour of Juncker was passed by 26 to two after Cameron won the support of only one other EU country – Hungary.
Juncker now becomes the European commission president designate. He can only formally assume office if he wins the support of a simple majority of MEPs.
The decisive support for Juncker after an unprecedented vote among EU leaders for a commission president marks a major setback for Cameron, who had thought key EU allies would oppose his nomination. But Angela Merkel, who had voiced doubts about Juncker, threw her support behind him after a domestic backlash when the German chancellor suggested last month that other candidates could be considered.
Before the vote Cameron told EU leaders they may live to regret the appointment, warning them of the grave consequences for public opinion in Britain.
In some of the strongest remarks by a British prime minister at an EU summit, Cameron condemned a "backroom deal" to appoint Juncker, who was being "railroaded" through against the wishes of Britain and Hungary.
Cameron, who warned of "wafer thin" British support for the EU, told EU leaders: "[Jean-Claude Juncker] is the ultimate Brussels insider who has been at the table for the last two decades of decisions. If you want change is that the type of person you want for the future?"
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/27/david-cameron-loses-jean-claude-juncker-vote-eu
This bit always kills me
"I've told EU leaders they could live to regret the new process for choosing the commission president." This system is inherently designed to pursue its own objectives irregardless of what people actually want, believing it should act first and shape public opinion, instead of be shaped by public opinion in action.
European Court of Justice judges are selected by members of the European Council, choosing 3 candidates per state for the initial selection phase in their own national elections in accordance with however they want to run it. Second phase involves a scrutiny by the EU itself, wherein they will check to see if the candidates are actually appropriately qualified for the job, and will then (if satisfied that they are), pick the strongest candidate. As far as I can tell there is no standardized selection process for the phase 1 bit across all European nations.
Ignoring the European Central Bank because it is administrative and not legislative is a puzzling move, because one cannot ever adequately address criticisms of accountable power if one willingly ignores the mechanisms which maintain that power. If the EU is supposed to represent a member nation-state's people, and the EU creates a central bank to manage that country's currency, money supply, interest rates, then it is important to know what mechanisms the European people have to stop such an organization from completely fucking them over.
Take for example the ECB's quantitative easing program, printing loads of euros to induce inflation and buy corporate and state bonds, but with notably very little oversight or interest outside of France or Germany:
FRANKFURT, June 21 (Reuters) - Around 12 percent of corporate bonds held by the European Central Bank have been bought at negative yields and over half of all purchases involved French or German firms, the ECB said in a bulletin article on Wednesday.
The figures are among the most detailed on the scheme and come after several members of the European Parliament criticised the ECB for the lack of transparency on the roughly 100 billion euros worth of buys.
It pointed out that the ECB had purchased of trillions of euros in securities and is now responsible for supervising the most important banks on the continent.
One of the most important recommendations is that the central bank should release all of its decisions and recommendations to the public. It also recommended that top central bankers disclose their assets and financial interests to avoid conflicts.
“The increase in ECB power means that it should satisfy much higher standards than before when it comes to accountability and transparency,” said Leo Hoffmann-Axthelm of Transparency International.
He argued that when the euro was introduced, the main goal was to protect the ECB’s independence. No one at the time predicted what a strong political role the ECB would assume in the euro crisis.
Burkhard Balz, a member of the European Parliament for Germany’s center-right Christian Democratic Union, “the ECB’s independence is a precious asset, but it cannot be misused as a fig leaf for a lack of transparency.”
He said that for many people, the central bank’s monetary policy remains a black box. Hans Michelbach, who represents the conservative Christian Social Union on the financial committee of the German parliament, the Bundestag, was even more critical. In his view, the ECB is currently acting like “a state within the state, without any controlling body.”
TI singled out the ECB’s role in the Greek bailout, noting that it made political choices instead of merely carrying out technical tasks, putting a strain on the framework which partially exempts it from democratic accountability.
“The ECB’s discretionary powers allowed it to put pressure on Greek banks while negotiating bailout reforms with the Greek government as part of the Troika of international creditors,” TI said.
“Similar dynamics could play out in the upcoming negotiations with Greece, and with the current recapitalization of Italian lender Monte dei Paschi di Siena, which threaten the euro zone’s current fragile stability,” it added.
While the ECB has made progress in transparency with the publication of board member diaries and policy meeting minutes, the ECB’s conflict of interest management is flawed and whistleblowing policies are outdated.
“The ECB faces a significant decline in public trust, which alongside its expanded responsibilities put considerable strain on its accountability,” TI said.
And of all sets of European Institutions you presented with me regarding bureaucrats, you leave out the ones staffed by tens of thousands bureaucrats. I really get the impression you're trying to ruse me ;]
And with that we segway into the rest; the ECB, the Commission's staff, the European Civil Service "
‘We’re not bureaucrats!’, the General Secretariat of the Council, and their amorphous mass of lobbyists, think tanks and support staff that follow train. ECB I've gone over. The Commission, the body of the Commissioners' staff - who unlike the Commissioners themselves, are permanent staff, are the one people are probably criticizing when they talk of unelected bureaucrats. But given how the EU will have 5 names for 1 organization and 1 name for 5 organizations I honestly wonder just how many pundits and public figures even know what they're talking about, heck, I'm still waiting to see whether the President of the Council or the President of the Commission can finally make up their minds and decide which one is actually in charge.
But to not get sidetracked, where the Commissioners decide upon policy (and the Council agrees or else is unable to stop them), it is thereupon up to the Commission to implement the regulation or legislation after it has passed the first reading in the European Parliament. Herein lies one of the most significant differences between the UK's civil service and the European civil service, whereas the UK civil service are cautioned to remain politically independent and distance themselves from MPs, the European Civil Service is encouraged to maintain contact with MEPs and advise them. The second is the whole comitology issue. First the European Commission makes a proposal of legislature to the European Council and the European Parliament, after which the European Parliament gives its first reading and their opinions on the proposal in the form of a series of amendments. Opinion at this stage is adopted on the basis of a simple majority of MEPs voting, proposing any ammendments in the plenary session, meaning any and all amendment proposals are allowed and accepted. These amendments are thereupon reviewed and commented upon by the Commission, who then decides whether to change its proposals accordingly. After this the Council adopts a common position and presents it to the European Parliament, usually by QMV, with the European Parliament then having 3 months to examine the Commission and the Council's views while it adopts its second reading amendments - during which this time only amendments proposed and qualified with an absolute majority of MEPs are accepted and passed. The Council then gets three months to decide which European Parliament amendments it will accept, usually approving those which the Commission has supported in the majority, though they can still pass an amendment with a unanimous vote if it is opposed by the Commission in the majority. If all amendments pass, it ends there, if not however then that's the end of that. If not, then conciliation starts which is chaired by a conciliation committee. Said committee is consisted of experts & officials from respective nation states in addition to an equal number of MEPs, with the addition that the Commission's officials assist & advise the committee through the whole process. Along this whole process every individual from MEP to Commissioner, Councilor or Bureaucrat is vulnerable to influence
by the EU's 30,000 lobbyists who are estimated to influence 75% of European legislation and
have even been found copying legislature written by lobbyists word for word.
Regardless, once the legislation is passed, we enter the second phase.
On the basis of updating laws to account for technological advancement or political changes within a nation stressing the practicalities of implementation, in order see the implementation of the legislature into real law the Commission steps up again, assisted by committees made up of experts sent by the EU's constituent nation-states. Needless to say, unelected bureaucrats from the EU Commission and the member states' experts then get to modify legislature without transparency or oversight in order to make them relevant - or push their agenda. This is a real no-no in British politics, because we know civil servants have the real capacity to push a hell of a lot of their own agendas through what with them being permanent and all, so we ask them to be apolitical. Don't think we're their yet, but fucking hell comitology takes it further. This system is designed to smooth over small details or define regulations (so for example, the EU Commissioners decide on reducing pollution in Europe by reducing car CO2 emissions, it would be up to the Commission to actually decide what levels of emissions would be acceptable to comply with regulations), yet in this process the legislators can simply pass legislation that would otherwise not get through without political blowback on to the committees for them to add in, thereby having unelected officials effect the laws in ways that benefit lobbyists.
There is not a lot of academic research nor a lot of news on this, oddly enough despite the level of criticism leveled at how unelected bureaucrats are muddling things up. But here's some clear cut examples that were high-profile enough to spark attention:
Car Emissions scandal - EU officials in meetings with automobile industry employers or employees (meetings they decided not to record) were caught deliberately delaying, diluting or undermining legislature that would lower car emissions and bring cheats to court; through this process the Commission was convinced not to take legal action against car manufacturers for cheating regulations, nor to take random tests on cars, and the conformity limit would have been higher
had the USA not managed to expose the cheating publicly. Thanks America
The failed bid at killing roaming charges was decided upon by comitology, though I find the EU Parliament's reaction notable for this one bit: The Commission’s solution: Cap free roaming for 30 consecutive days and limit them to about 90 days in a year. MEPs reacted with a roar, appearing to have forgotten that they voted to include a fair-use clause less than a year ago.
“MEPs, as usual, have not really read what they passed,” said one source in the Parliament. Lol
And the GMO import debacle is a rather illustrative one, in how the Commission got GMO imports OKd for Europe despite opposition by a majority of EU nations in a highly public debate. "Instead of ministers and MEPs making the decision on GM crops next month, it is due to be made by the comitology body - the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals and Feed. Daniel Guéguen, a professor at the College of Europe and head of strategy for the lobbying firm PACT European Affairs, said: “It simply does not work. It is very, very complex, and very few people understand how it works.” Franziska Achterberg, food policy director for Greenpeace in Europe told Politico, said she welcomed Mr Juncker’s planned reforms. She said:
“This is one big black box. Proposals aren’t published, votes are held in secret and no information is published as to who voted what.”That the eurocrats do shit like this while southern europe and eastern europe are left to wallow is also generally, bad for PR, but that's another tune to sing entirely
This group appointed only by convention from amongst elected persons. Persons elected to just one non-majority party, and chosen/made-do-with by a person whose sole practical majority is the 26,000 odd constituency voters (down from 29k!) that lets her represent Maidenhead, and only in power 'cos she was the last woman standing and now nobody from her own party has any mind to seize the poisoned challice from her unappointed lips... Yet!
Now onto the Britgov argument!
I'm going to disagree with you because it doesn't really make sense to me, so I'll just explain my philosophy on why I act differently on this. I don't have an issue with the House of Commons electing their leader from amongst themselves, as they must ultimately have gotten a democratic mandate from their party's position on their campaign prior to election and from their constituents. I would prefer a system that is more in line with the Labour party wherein all members get a vote, yet I have no solution to stop entryism affecting the outcome. More important in my opinion is in how parties select MP candidates in totality, imo there is no point in getting to vote for the direct leader if it's all from a pool of Oxbridge candidates who think the same. This is why I focus so much on [l o c a l p o l i t i c s], because that's where you're most able to get shit done. This is because a Prime Minister must be able to lead the confidence of their party, otherwise you end up with a party in conflict - look at the Labour party after Corbyn, or the Tory party for the last 18 years. Theresa May was elected by her party and won the general election called, so I'm not sure why you insist on calling elected politicians unelected bureaucrats and unelected bureaucrats elected politicians. Whatever you think of her diminishing majorities, you know it's factually wrong to say no one voted for her.
Tell me that you had any hand in getting any of this potentially hyper-executive Cabinet into power.
Tell me what is potentially hyper-executive about this Cabinet? The Cabinet has traditionally been the executive branch of government for the past 500 years, Tony Blair's Presidential years were anomalous, not the other way around.
At most, you might have voted for one of them, but (unless you're in Maidenhead, and even then) then that's just luck.
At most? How about no m8. I even got peopled registered to vote, though it's gonna confuse you that I got labour voters registered lmao, needless to say your options are open when you can actively get involved in debates and walk to your MP (or even better, when your Councillors are doing the rounds around your neighbourhood).
Run the numbers, and you'll find that your voter influence in these matters is more insignificant than the multi-path authorisation that the average European has over the pan-European supranational institution that some of us seem not to like.
Yeah nah my influence in the UK just got Brexit, my influence in the EU got nothing - there'd not even be any point voting for an MEP who didn't live in England or could propose any laws for my benefit. My MP is building my borough a bridge. There's not a commission bureaucrat that knows where my borough is on the maps, and I can't even vote one of my neighbours into the commission. MEPs? What'd even be the point.
(us included, although we Brits can't actually claim to have elected our Head Of Government, so maybe we should fix that first, before complaining about the Gnomes Of Zurich, etc.)
I'm a Brit and I beg to differ, cos I'm only gone and done claimed we've elected our Head of Government lel.
And in all seriousness, what the kind of bloody hell argument is that? I've seen it before, people saying that oh lobbying's just as fucked in the UK therefore I shouldn't criticize the EU fucking up Europe with lobbying. How about no? If the EU wins then that government is one I can't even see without plane or sail, with zero mechanisms for accountability or any point to even partake in pointless elections. If we win then we won't have to deal with the EU assassinating European democracy, it'll be the continental's problem to deal with while we can get busy at work sorting out Westminster and Whitehall's fuckups and corruption. Best part of it all? We're actually able to put Brit politicians feet to the fire, Cameron, Theresa May - roasted.
But yeah nah we should add the EU's problems to our own, that will make solving our problems easier somehow
Author
Topic: UK Snap Election Thread - Darth May (Read 42172 times)