EU leaders choose France's Lagarde for ECB after marathon summit

[dick dasterdly]

17 hours ago, Baerboxer said:

 

You should remember the German lady - as Defense Minister of Germany, just after the Brexit referendum result, she announced how pleased she was Britain was leaving the EU as they were blocking her vision of a EU army! (One she seemed to suggest should be HQ'd in Germany!).

 

And the nice French lady, Madame Lagarde. Convicted of a serious fraud which cost tax payers millions. But the judge decided she didn't deserve punishment, which is permitted under French law. Nice to see that fraud conviction hasn't impaired her career.

 

Two wonderful choices! Of course Germany and France don't run the EU! Jobs have been given to dodgy Belgian, unknown Italian and obscure Spaniard to keep the neighbors quiet. Bet the Scandinavians and East Europeans are over the moon with these choices!

 

 

"And the nice French lady, Madame Lagarde. Convicted of a serious fraud which cost tax payers millions. But the judge decided she didn't deserve punishment"

"Nice to see that fraud conviction hasn't impaired her career."

 

Quite ☹️????.

[dick dasterdly]

1 hour ago, evadgib said:

The EU appointments to the top jobs were discussed on BBCTW last night. The full debate was quite long but AN was on fire & TBH would have been a much better choice to host Question Time when Dimbleby retired:

 

Here's a short clip:

 

Thank you for that link.

 

I no longer watch news programmes, but from that short clip - AN certainly made it very clear that Paviot was making a fool of herself as she desperately tried to equivocate.

[dick dasterdly]

2 hours ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

And when did you vote for the most powerful person in the UK? A choice of 1, who is never elected by anyone. 

I must be missing something here?

 

Precisely who are you referring to as "the most powerful person in the UK"?

 

Edit - My mistake - belatedly realised you probably meant the queen ????.

Edited July 5, 2019 by dick dasterdly

[candide]

On 7/4/2019 at 5:37 AM, luckyluke said:

 

 

 

 

Edited July 5, 2019 by candide
Misquoted

[candide]

On 7/4/2019 at 6:08 AM, aright said:

 

The EU Commissioner is the most powerful person in the EU (with the possible exception of Merkel)…..to suggest he or she doesn't affect the daily life of EU citizens is naïve. 

 

I voted in the last UK General Election, comprising many choices, knowing that if my Party won their leader would be the next Prime Minister...…….I was happy with that.

What vote did I or the MEP's get in the appointment of the EU Commissioner comprising one choice. Of what value is that to the EU Parliament or EU citizens or democracy?

 

Oh! I have just had a thought as to who might benefit...………………. 

They are appointed by elected governments who represent their electors. There are two main reasons for that. Firstly, some If elected by the EP or directly, the most populated countries would have an even stronger advantage. The two previous CPs were from small countries: Luxemburg and Portugal. Secondly, the EC is politically neutral. If elected by the EP or directly, they would represent a political party.

 

Additionally, do you think your point is in coherence with your opposition to a so-called United States of Europe? If the EC president were elected directly or indirectly, his legitimacy would be drawn from the citizen (of the most populated countries) and not from the individual countries. That would be the United States of Europe. And that's exactly what you are fully opposed to.

[aright]

3 hours ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

And when did you vote for the most powerful person in the UK? A choice of 1, who is never elected by anyone. 

I voted for my MP in the knowledge that if his/her party were in the majority the head of that party would be PM. Both sides of the Brexit argument were represented on the ballot paper, manifestos, for what they are worth, were diverse leading to plenty of choice and I was happy with that. In short I knew that whatever party I voted for their leader would be the next PM if a majority vote was obtained. I had no such feelings in the EU elections about any political party. Did you?

You seem to be suggesting their should be national elections to decide who the leader of each political party should be. Good luck with that.

[welovesundaysatspace]

1 hour ago, dick dasterdly said:

I must be missing something here?

 

Precisely who are you referring to as "the most powerful person in the UK"?

 

Edit - My mistake - belatedly realised you probably meant the queen ????.

Exactly. Your own head of state and commander-in-chief, who has authority over your government and appoints the prime minister, is unelected. You’re the last to call anyone unelected. 

[welovesundaysatspace]

9 minutes ago, aright said:

I voted for my MP in the knowledge that if his/her party were in the majority the head of that party would be PM. Both sides of the Brexit argument were represented on the ballot paper, manifestos, for what they are worth, were diverse leading to plenty of choice and I was happy with that. In short I knew that whatever party I voted for their leader would be the next PM if a majority vote was obtained. I had no such feelings in the EU elections about any political party. Did you?

You seem to be suggesting their should be national elections to decide who the leader of each political party should be. Good luck with that.

We were talking about the most powerful person. When did you vote for your head of state and commander-in-chief; the person who has authority over your government and appoints your prime minister? 

[aright]

17 minutes ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

We were talking about the most powerful person. When did you vote for your head of state and commander-in-chief; the person who has authority over your government and appoints your prime minister? 

Put that way I suppose God is more powerful than the Head of the Commission who is only in charge of education, employment tax and trade......What else is there? .

I will put it more simply...….IN the UK we have direct democracy.  Every MP and minister must be elected directly by the people.  They can all be subject to deselection if they mess up.  EU Gruppenfuhrers have no such accountability and that's not a system I want.

Edited July 5, 2019 by aright

[candide]

30 minutes ago, aright said:

Put that way I suppose God is more powerful than the Head of the Commission who is only in charge of education, employment tax and trade......What else is there? .

I will put it more simply...….IN the UK we have direct democracy.  Every MP and minister must be elected directly by the people.  They can all be subject to deselection if they mess up.  EU Gruppenfuhrers have no such accountability and that's not a system I want.

As I mentioned in a previous post, if the EC president is directly elected it becomes a system in which individual countries' governments have little say. It's a clear move towards United States of Europe. Did I misunderstood that you were against a USE type of system?

Edited July 5, 2019 by candide

[aright]

10 minutes ago, candide said:

As I mentioned in a previous post, if the EC president is directly elected it becomes a system in which individual countries' government have little say. It's a clear move towards United States of Europe. Did I misunderstood that you were against a USE type of system?

I would have thought that giving smaller countries a say commensurate with their size is democracy....are you saying Cyprus with a population of 865000 should have as much of a say as Germany with 82 million people (the evidence is against this). If Cyprus feel they are hard done by in this arrangement I would recommend they become independent, leave the EU, then they will get 100% of the say in their internal affairs.

I am not against  a USE system if that's what the people of the Union want, that would be undemocratic, although voting patterns at the moment and my personal experience suggest that's not what they want. 

 In 1975 the electorate was presented with the chance to join a smallish trading bloc which was in fact a well-disguised attempt at creating a federal Europe which had the voters known at that time would never have opted to join. 

I do not want to be part of the USE because, too me, ever closer union in the EU means ever less democracy and ever less self-determination. You obviously feel more empowered staying in. 

A difference of opinion I suppose.

 

[candide]

17 minutes ago, aright said:

I would have thought that giving smaller countries a say commensurate with their size is democracy....are you saying Cyprus with a population of 865000 should have as much of a say as Germany with 82 million people (the evidence is against this). If Cyprus feel they are hard done by in this arrangement I would recommend they become independent, leave the EU, then they will get 100% of the say in their internal affairs.

I am not against  a USE system if that's what the people of the Union want, that would be undemocratic, although voting patterns at the moment and my personal experience suggest that's not what they want. 

 In 1975 the electorate was presented with the chance to join a smallish trading bloc which was in fact a well-disguised attempt at creating a federal Europe which had the voters known at that time would never have opted to join. 

I do not want to be part of the USE because, too me, ever closer union in the EU means ever less democracy and ever less self-determination. You obviously feel more empowered staying in. 

A difference of opinion I suppose.

 

It's not only an issue of size. Actually, there is some kind of ponderation with the qualified majority calculation. The issue is what is the source of power. Currently, the main source of power are the individual governments, tempered by the EP.

Personally, I prefer the countries' governments power to be dominant because they have to implement the European directives and regulations. In the current system, the EU regulations are standards and broad guidelines that will be implemented in national laws and enforced by national administrations. So when they vote for a policy or regulation, they know they will have to implement it. They will avoid to vote something which is not practicable. It may not be the case with the MEPs. 

The political neutrality argument is also not irrelevant. Imagine someone like Thatcher elected and imposing a political stance to countries who have voted for a left-wing party, or vice-versa.

[nauseus]

On 7/3/2019 at 5:09 PM, soalbundy said:

No gravy train in Westminster and the house of lords is squeaky clean, thank the lord for good honest British politics.

Amen.

[nauseus]

On 7/4/2019 at 4:46 AM, observer90210 said:

EU was a basically good idea for economic strenght (?)....but it has become a politically correct, dictatorship. Sorry no offence.

None taken I'm sure. 

[nauseus]

On 7/4/2019 at 2:58 PM, luckyluke said:

 To be clear, I am not a really a fan of all this appointees in the E.U., but it is there and I, and others, have to live with it, even we don't know what is actually their purpose. 

 

There must be Brits who are not that happy with the House of Lords either. 

 

Maybe the comparison is not accurate, I don't know nothing about it, only that they are not elected. 

Well, at least you used the word appointee. You sound like a fair man. 

[evadgib]

53 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Well, at least you used the word appointee. You sound like a fair man. 

Portillo weighed in on this point last night too & so did Ann Widdecombe in several interviews after her maiden speech in EU parliament

(see @ 1 min)

 

[nauseus]

37 minutes ago, evadgib said:

Portillo weighed in on this point last night too & so did Ann Widdecombe in several interviews after her maiden speech in EU parliament

(see @ 1 min)

 

Good old choochoo  ???? 

[nauseus]

5 hours ago, candide said:

They are appointed by elected governments who represent their electors. There are two main reasons for that. Firstly, some If elected by the EP or directly, the most populated countries would have an even stronger advantage. The two previous CPs were from small countries: Luxemburg and Portugal. Secondly, the EC is politically neutral. If elected by the EP or directly, they would represent a political party.

 

Additionally, do you think your point is in coherence with your opposition to a so-called United States of Europe? If the EC president were elected directly or indirectly, his legitimacy would be drawn from the citizen (of the most populated countries) and not from the individual countries. That would be the United States of Europe. And that's exactly what you are fully opposed to.

How can you say that the EC is politically neutral? The Commissioners might hold different politics (although to qualify for 'appointment' I would guess those differences are minimal) but how could they become neutral overnight, bearing in mind their previous affiliations?

[candide]

22 minutes ago, nauseus said:

How can you say that the EC is politically neutral? The Commissioners might hold different politics (although to qualify for 'appointment' I would guess those differences are minimal) but how could they become neutral overnight, bearing in mind their previous affiliations?

They may have personal preferences but they don't represent a party and they are not expected to apply the political program of their party.

[nauseus]

25 minutes ago, candide said:

They may have personal preferences but they don't represent a party and they are not expected to apply the political program of their party.

OK. But I then suppose that they are expected to be sympathetic to and continue with the ongoing centralization of power to Brussels and away from individual EU states? Like an EU party, really? 

Edited July 5, 2019 by nauseus
happy hour

[candide]

3 hours ago, nauseus said:

OK. But I then suppose that they are expected to be sympathetic to and continue with the ongoing centralization of power to Brussels and away from individual EU states? Like an EU party, really? 

Which ongoing centralisation of power? The scope of the EC is defined by the member states, the policy agenda has to be approved by member States, etc... I am not aware that the competence of the EC has been broadened. Actually, the recent trend has rather been to put the emphasis on more subsidiarity.

[nauseus]

24 minutes ago, candide said:

Which ongoing centralisation of power? The scope of the EC is defined by the member states, the policy agenda has to be approved by member States, etc... I am not aware that the competence of the EC has been broadened. Actually, the recent trend has rather been to put the emphasis on more subsidiarity.

Oh right. Then they won't need the army and increased contributions after all? 

[Chomper Higgot]

On 7/4/2019 at 5:37 PM, Baerboxer said:

 

You should remember the German lady - as Defense Minister of Germany, just after the Brexit referendum result, she announced how pleased she was Britain was leaving the EU as they were blocking her vision of a EU army! (One she seemed to suggest should be HQ'd in Germany!).

 

And the nice French lady, Madame Lagarde. Convicted of a serious fraud which cost tax payers millions. But the judge decided she didn't deserve punishment, which is permitted under French law. Nice to see that fraud conviction hasn't impaired her career.

 

Two wonderful choices! Of course Germany and France don't run the EU! Jobs have been given to dodgy Belgian, unknown Italian and obscure Spaniard to keep the neighbors quiet. Bet the Scandinavians and East Europeans are over the moon with these choices!

 

 

"And the nice French lady, Madame Lagarde. Convicted of a serious fraud which cost tax payers millions."

 

Fraud is a very serious crime, a serious fraud would certainly be a very serious crime. 

 

Do you have evidence to back your very serious allegation that Madame Lagarde was ever even charged with fraud, let alone 'Convicted of a serious fraud' ?

 

If you can't find the evidence to back up this serious allegation you might want to use the report function to request your unfounded allegation be removed. 

[evadgib]

58 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

"And the nice French lady, Madame Lagarde. Convicted of a serious fraud which cost tax payers millions."

 

Fraud is a very serious crime, a serious fraud would certainly be a very serious crime. 

 

Do you have evidence to back your very serious allegation that Madame Lagarde was ever even charged with fraud, let alone 'Convicted of a serious fraud' ?

 

If you can't find the evidence to back up this serious allegation you might want to use the report function to request your unfounded allegation be removed. 

Will this do?

Edited July 6, 2019 by evadgib

[expatfromwyoming]

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

"And the nice French lady, Madame Lagarde. Convicted of a serious fraud which cost tax payers millions."

 

Fraud is a very serious crime, a serious fraud would certainly be a very serious crime. 

 

Do you have evidence to back your very serious allegation that Madame Lagarde was ever even charged with fraud, let alone 'Convicted of a serious fraud' ?

 

If you can't find the evidence to back up this serious allegation you might want to use the report function to request your unfounded allegation be removed. 

She was convicted of misuse of state funds. Amounting to €420 million

[Chomper Higgot]

7 minutes ago, expatfromwyoming said:

She was convicted of misuse of state funds. Amounting to €420 million

Link.

[Chomper Higgot]

23 minutes ago, evadgib said:

Will this do?

No it won't do. 

 

The accusation being made, and which I am challenging, is Legarde has been found guilty of a 'serious fraud'.

 

The link you have provided details a trial and conviction for 'negligence'.

 

But thank your for your linked article which included this quote:

 

Even the trial’s chief prosecutor Jean-Claude Marin said the accusation was “very weak” and warned of confusion between “criminal negligence” and a “bad political decision”.

[nauseus]

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

No it won't do. 

 

The accusation being made, and which I am challenging, is Legarde has been found guilty of a 'serious fraud'.

 

The link you have provided details a trial and conviction for 'negligence'.

 

But thank your for your linked article which included this quote:

 

Even the trial’s chief prosecutor Jean-Claude Marin said the accusation was “very weak” and warned of confusion between “criminal negligence” and a “bad political decision”.

 

You're right Chomper. From the balance of these links it seems that, although it was a fraud case, it was only serious enough for the French CJR to find Lagarde guilty of negligence, for 'misuse of public funds''.

 

So, no big thing then. She's obviously a great choice to lead the ECB! ????  

 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/dec/19/christine-lagarde-avoids-sentence-despite-guilty-verdict-in-negligence-trial

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/christine-lagarde-convicted-imf-head-found-guilty-of-negligence-in-fraud-trial-a7484586.html

 

https://www.ft.com/content/55f3ec08-bf83-11e6-9bca-2b93a6856354

[Chomper Higgot]

20 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

You're right Chomper. From the balance of these links it seems that, although it was a fraud case, it was only serious enough for the French CJR to find Lagarde guilty of negligence, for 'misuse of public funds''.

 

So, no big thing then. She's obviously a great choice to lead the ECB! ????  

 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/dec/19/christine-lagarde-avoids-sentence-despite-guilty-verdict-in-negligence-trial

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/christine-lagarde-convicted-imf-head-found-guilty-of-negligence-in-fraud-trial-a7484586.html

 

https://www.ft.com/content/55f3ec08-bf83-11e6-9bca-2b93a6856354

She was found guilty of negligence. Not 'serious fraud'. 

 

Accusing somebody of being found guilty of serious fraud when they have not, is libel. 

 

I guess that doesn't matter. 

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

On 7/5/2019 at 1:48 PM, aright said:

Put that way I suppose God is more powerful than the Head of the Commission who is only in charge of education, employment tax and trade......What else is there? .

I will put it more simply...….IN the UK we have direct democracy.  Every MP and minister must be elected directly by the people.  They can all be subject to deselection if they mess up.  EU Gruppenfuhrers have no such accountability and that's not a system I want.

You seem to be misinformed.

 

"I will put it more simply...….IN the UK we have direct democracy.  Every MP and minister must be elected directly by the people".

 

There is absolutely no requirement that 'ministers must be elected directly by the people'

 

Cabinet ministers are not elected to ministerial office by the people, and there is absolutely no requirement that they must be elected to Parliament by the people. 

 

Throughout the past one hundred years there have been numerous occasions upon which members of the House of Lords (not elected by the people) have been appointed to the cabinet as ministers and a number of occasions in which people who were not members of either of the Houses of Parliament have been appointed to the cabinet as ministers.