Brexit's effect on UK 'will be profound and unpredictable', lawmakers say

[rufanuf]

6 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

So you believe the government of the UK is undemocratic because the head of our government, the Prime Minister, is not directly elected and the ministers in the cabinet are appointed by the Prime Minister?

You seem to have problem understanding the subtle nuances of political structure. You think that democracy is still democracy if the people placed into power are one step removed from the ACTUAL public vote. Its not.

Edited July 20, 2017 by rufanuf

[7by7]

16 minutes ago, rufanuf said:

You seem to have problem understanding the subtle nuances of political structure. You think that democracy is still democracy if the people place into power are one step removed from the ACTUAL vote. Its not.

So you do believe the UK is not a democracy?

 

Like most democracies, the UK is representative. We elect MPs to represent us in Parliament, and the leader of the party who can command the most votes in Parliament becomes Prime Minister. Usually this party also has the majority of seats, but, as at present, not always.

 

Perhaps you'd prefer a direct democracy; one where every single issue is put to a referendum?

Edited July 20, 2017 by 7by7
Spelling

[rufanuf]

Just now, 7by7 said:

So you do believe the UK is not a democracy?

 

Like most democracies, the UK is representative. We elect MPs to represent us in Parliament, and the leader of the party who can command the most votes in Parliament becomes Prime Minister. Usually this party also has the majority of seats, but, as at present, not always.

 

Perhaps you'd prefer a direct democracy; one where very single issue is put to a referendum?

No system is perfect. However what the UK system does NOT do that EU does is offer the politician an opportunity to have more power in office than what they was voted in for. This is at the heart of the EUs structural problems, and why it cause so much resentment amongst the population who really think about it.

 

A simple example of this fact can be made by the simple observation that foreign politicians who have absolutely  NO association with up to 27 of the 28 states they are passing laws for can indeed influence the laws of 27 countries they have absolutely no genuine allegiances too whatsoever.

 

The counter argument to this by EU supporters is the power of veto. Great!!! So we can't make necessary changes locally due to it not being in the other 27s interests, but we can all have great fun blowing every single good idea out of the water if it does not suit everyone else?  Probably the most backward political process anyone ever conceived. It's almost like democracy in reverse!

[7by7]

You say want democracy in the EU, but are now complaining because the elected politicians have all the power; complaining that all member states have the same democratic rights as all others!

 

You do realise that your argument can be used to prove any federal system of government, such as the USA, is undemocratic?

 

So what do you want; an EU run by unelected officials or one run by the elected governments of each member state?

 

Although I suspect what you really want is one where the other 27 behave themselves and do what the UK tells them!

[rufanuf]

8 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

You say want democracy in the EU, but are now complaining because the elected politicians have all the power; complaining that all member states have the same democratic rights as all others!

 

You do realise that your argument can be used to prove any federal system of government, such as the USA, is undemocratic?

 

So what do you want; an EU run by unelected officials or one run by the elected governments of each member state?

 

Although I suspect what you really want is one where the other 27 behave themselves and do what the UK tells them!

Your last statement, made in the true fashion of an EU Neo Liberal Socialist with a chip on their soldier. You should be very mindful of the fact that "when opening their mouths to describe another's motives" people have an uncanny knack of simply describing their own"

 

As someone who was born and bred to a far truer democracy than any mainland European country, I have utterly no interest in what the countries of the EU are doing until they become unfriendly and try and invade our nation, be it by direct military threat or through some stealth political project. The net result is the same.

Edited July 20, 2017 by rufanuf

[rufanuf]

11 minutes ago, rufanuf said:

Your last statement, made in the true fashion of an EU Neo Liberal Socialist with a chip on their soldier. You should be very mindful of the fact that "when opening their mouths to describe another's motives" people have an uncanny knack of simply describing their own"

 

As someone who was born and bred to a far truer democracy than any mainland European country, I have utterly no interest in what the countries of the EU are doing until they become unfriendly and try and invade our nation, be it by direct military threat or through some stealth political project. The net result is the same.

So in answer to your question, what kind fo EU do I want? The answer is NONE. Most nations in Europe would be far better off without it. The poorer peoples of those countries most certainly would..

[Lowryder]

2 hours ago, rufanuf said:

The "main thrust of my post" is that the EU is by design undemocratic, and your efforts to explain its workings illustrate the problems more eloquently than I ever could.

EU should have a house of lords to make it more democratic. 

[Jack100]

All screwed  up from the start  , there was that red bus with 50 million written on it . Oh  and I remember Nigel on tv  bragging about how the pound went UP when they announced the  Brexit referendum - of  course  that was in January 2016 and it was actually the dollar going DOWN   against every currency

in the world for some other reason altogether .

Quite amazing that a political party leader would tell such porkies  on the BBC.

[7by7]

2 hours ago, rufanuf said:

2 hours ago, 7by7 said:

Although I suspect what you really want is one where the other 27 behave themselves and do what the UK tells them!

Your last statement, made in the true fashion of an EU Neo Liberal Socialist with a chip on their soldier. You should be very mindful of the fact that "when opening their mouths to describe another's motives" people have an uncanny knack of simply describing their own"

Since, having seen all your other attempts to show the EU is undemocratic shot down in flames, you resort to saying it's undemocratic because the other 27 can outvote us, or one of them can use their veto to block us; it's difficult to see what other conclusion can be drawn.

 

BTW, you should read Can the UK veto new EU laws? You will see that there are very few areas where the veto can be used.

 

2 hours ago, rufanuf said:

As someone who was born and bred to a far truer democracy than any mainland European country, 

A far truer democracy? You can't mean the UK as our second chamber is unelected whereas in those of the other 27 who also have bicameral legislatures the second chamber is elected! In those which have unicameral legislatures the one and only chamber is, of course, elected.

 

The UK is the only EU member whose legislature has an unelected chamber.

 

2 hours ago, rufanuf said:

I have utterly no interest in what the countries of the EU are doing until they become unfriendly and try and invade our nation, be it by direct military threat or through some stealth political project. The net result is the same.

You seem to be echoing Chamberlain when in 1938 he talked of a quarrel in a far-away country between people of whom we know nothing! Although I am not, of course, saying in anyway that Brexit will lead to war.

 

2 hours ago, rufanuf said:

So in answer to your question, what kind fo EU do I want? The answer is NONE. Most nations in Europe would be far better off without it. The poorer peoples of those countries most certainly would

An opinion to which you are entitled, of course. But I believe it is not one shared by many. Even some of those in the UK who voted for Brexit are now having second thoughts! Although, to be fair, some of those who voted Remain have since changed their minds as well.

One of many polls to show this: Does your area regret voting for Brexit? City-by-city breakdown of our major EU referendum survey

Quote

13.5% of Leavers would now vote Remain

Out of all people who told us they voted Leave on 23 June 2016, this is the percentage who now say they would vote Remain.

9.3% of Remainers would now vote Leave

Out of all people who told us they voted Remain on 23 June 2016, this is the percentage who now say they would vote for Brexit.

Would SWITCH from Leave (51.9%) to Remain (51.2%)

 

Personally, despite being labelled by you as "EU Neo Liberal Socialist with a chip on their soldier (sic)" I agree with the sentiments of Winston Churchill, as expressed both before the war and after; such as his speech in Zurich on the I9th September 1946.

Quote

Indeed, but for the fact that the great Republic across the Atlantic Ocean has at length realised that the ruin or enslavement of Europe would involve their own fate as well, and has stretched out hands of succour and guidance, the Dark Ages would have returned in all their cruelty and squalor.

They may still return.

Yet all the while there is a remedy which, if it were generally and spontaneously adopted, would as if by a miracle transform the whole scene, and would in a few years make all Europe, or the greater part of it, as free and as happy as Switzerland is today.

What is this sovereign remedy?

It is to re-create the European Family, or as much of it as we can, and provide it with a structure under which it can dwell in peace, in safety and in freedom.

We must build a kind of United States of Europe.

In this way only will hundreds of millions of toilers be able to regain the simple joys and hopes which make life worth living.

 

At the time of that speech, Churchill did not foresee the UK joining this 'kind of United States of Europe.' At the time he envisaged a triumvirate for the maintenance of world order consisting of the Commonwealth as a unit, the United States and a united Europe, A view he came to change as the British Empire disintegrated.

 

See A Euro-sceptic? Churchill? Never

Quote

These conditions may have been met in the early post-war years, but the shifting distribution of power in the post-war world was always working against Churchill's vision of world order, and it was decidedly untenable by the time Harold Macmillan applied to join the European Community in 1961. Decolonisation, while laudable, had robbed the Commonwealth of its political cohesion; and the United States and the European Community, blessed with rapid economic growth and confident and outward-looking political leadership, were both now far less susceptible to British influence

In these circumstances, Britain could only continue playing the role in the world that Churchill had envisaged by joining the European Community. Churchill himself recognised this fact in a letter to his constituency chairman in August 1961, in which he declared, "I think that the Government are right to apply to join the European Economic Community."

 

But maybe you consider Churchill to have been a Neo Liberal Socialist with a chip on his shoulder?

Edited July 20, 2017 by 7by7

[nauseus]

4 hours ago, 7by7 said:

You say want democracy in the EU, but are now complaining because the elected politicians have all the power; complaining that all member states have the same democratic rights as all others!

 

You do realise that your argument can be used to prove any federal system of government, such as the USA, is undemocratic?

 

So what do you want; an EU run by unelected officials or one run by the elected governments of each member state?

 

Although I suspect what you really want is one where the other 27 behave themselves and do what the UK tells them!

The real EU leaders with power are selected rather than elected and it is all too secretive.

Cameron couldn't prevent Juncker from getting the EU Commission presidency.

 

[7by7]

13 minutes ago, nauseus said:

The real EU leaders with power are selected rather than elected and it is all too secretive.

Cameron couldn't prevent Juncker from getting the EU Commission presidency.

 

 

By convention there is just one candidate for Commission president, and that candidate is selected by the Council; tell us, who did Cameron wish to nominate?

 

In a council with 28 members, not all are going to agree; but each member has one vote. It's called democracy!

 

The Council's nominee then has to be approved by the European Parliament; democracy again!

Edited July 20, 2017 by 7by7

[nauseus]

7 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 

By convention there is just one candidate for Commission president, and that candidate is selected by the Council; tell us, who did Cameron wish to nominate?

 

In a council with 28 members, not all are going to agree; but each member has one vote. It's called democracy!

 

The Council's nominee then has to be approved by the European Parliament; democracy again!

Convention. Right! Select one candidate.Right. Democracy. Right.

 

Wrong.

[puck2]

Refering to the OP, it's obvious that the Brexiteers don't want to accept some positive facts of the ÉU.

 

• It should be thought-provoking that the British have to restore xx.xxx EU laws into UK law. All of these laws have been bureaucratic, or even undemocratic, senseles, useless, redundant etc.? Let's see how many (few) of them will fall under the table – after the Brexit.

• The US has not been made within the earth-time frame of 7 (no 6 days) as reported in the bible. So give the the EU a chance to build a strong bloc over many years.

• Under the EU there was no war among its members and I guess there won't be one in the future. Compare this to the USA history. For problems there is a European Court, normal in a democratic system of separation of powers.

• The EU as bloc has effectively much more power and influence in economic, political (and war affairs in the future).

• The EU has already positively managed economical threats though world cartels. Among them banking cartels, i.e. Visa-/Mastercard-(fees), Google, Facebook etc.

• Positive side effects of the EU, although now not all members are concerned:

                Euro- I know not all will agree with me. But handling the problems is possible.

                Shengen – free visa-free moving within the EU, great! And more freedom of   moving businesses.

 

Edited July 21, 2017 by puck2

[7by7]

18 hours ago, nauseus said:

Convention. Right! Select one candidate.Right. Democracy. Right.

 

Wrong.

You still don't get it; Junker is an official, a civil servant, an employee.

 

He is the president of the EU Commission, which is the civil service of the EU, and as such is a powerful man; just as Jeremy Heywood, the UK Cabinet Secretary and Head of the Home Civil Service, is. But like Heywood, Junker can only advise.

 

The Commission can propose EU laws, as can and does the UK civil service, but those proposals have to be approved by one or more of the three democratically appointed legislative branches of the EU; the Council, the Council of Ministers and/or the European Parliament.

 

The Commission president also represents the EU internationally; but in tandem with the president of the European Council, who is elected by the members of that Council.

 

I am not saying that the democratic processes of the EU are perfect. For example there is some merit to the idea of the Council President being directly elected. Though critics of that idea say this could lead to a presidential system of governance, like the USA, rather than the Parliamentary system currently in place.

 

‘Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…’

Winston S Churchill, 11 November 1947

[Thongkorn]

On 7/20/2017 at 11:13 AM, Lowryder said:

EU should have a house of lords to make it more democratic. 

How can they when 19 Are unelected, cannot be held to account , or sacked,

[nauseus]

3 hours ago, 7by7 said:

You still don't get it; Junker is an official, a civil servant, an employee.

 

He is the president of the EU Commission, which is the civil service of the EU, and as such is a powerful man; just as Jeremy Heywood, the UK Cabinet Secretary and Head of the Home Civil Service, is. But like Heywood, Junker can only advise.

 

The Commission can propose EU laws, as can and does the UK civil service, but those proposals have to be approved by one or more of the three democratically appointed legislative branches of the EU; the Council, the Council of Ministers and/or the European Parliament.

 

The Commission president also represents the EU internationally; but in tandem with the president of the European Council, who is elected by the members of that Council.

 

I am not saying that the democratic processes of the EU are perfect. For example there is some merit to the idea of the Council President being directly elected. Though critics of that idea say this could lead to a presidential system of governance, like the USA, rather than the Parliamentary system currently in place.

 

‘Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…’

Winston S Churchill, 11 November 1947

I don't get it? Juncker was forced to resign as prime minister of tiny Luxembourg, after a spying scandal and he was also recently associated with corporate tax favoritism in Luxembourg. A truly devious and failed politician to be selected rather than elected as European Commission president, despite objection from the UK! Yes, unfortunately, he is a powerful man.

 

The European Commission is the EU executive. It proposes and enforces legislation and implements policies and controls the budget. The European Commission is is the real power in the EU and rarely are its proposals denied or altered by the two councils or parliament.  

 

Get it?

Edited July 21, 2017 by nauseus

[puck2]

3 hours ago, nauseus said:

I don't get it? Juncker was forced to resign as prime minister of tiny Luxembourg, after a spying scandal and he was also recently associated with corporate tax favoritism in Luxembourg. A truly devious and failed politician to be selected rather than elected as European Commission president, despite objection from the UK! Yes, unfortunately, he is a powerful man.

 

The European Commission is the EU executive. It proposes and enforces legislation and implements policies and controls the budget. The European Commission is is the real power in the EU and rarely are its proposals denied or altered by the two councils or parliament.  

 

Get it?

You don't get it.

7by7 patiently explained the difference between the executive and legislative in the EU.

The Commission can propose EU laws, as can and does the UK civil service, but those proposals have to be approved by one or more of the three democratically appointed

legislative branches of the EU; the Council, the Council of Ministers and/or the European Parliament.

 

An alternative to Juncker was Tony Blair. But his chance/credibility was squandered as Bush's pudel in the Iraq war. I don't defend Juncker. Democracy also means majority of .....and not UK hegemony.

 

It seems you deflect from the subject of this topic. The current UK government isn't prepared for  the Brexit for some reasons. Among them the discord of its members.

 

 

 

[Khun Han]

23 minutes ago, puck2 said:

You don't get it.

7by7 patiently explained the difference between the executive and legislative in the EU.

 

 

 

An alternative to Juncker was Tony Blair. But his chance/credibility was squandered as Bush's pudel in the Iraq war. I don't defend Juncker. Democracy also means majority of .....and not UK hegemony.

 

It seems you deflect from the subject of this topic. The current UK government isn't prepared for  the Brexit for some reasons. Among them the discord of its members.

 

 

 

 

The UK didn't support the appointment of Merkel's corrupt stooge, so that makes us hegemonic. The UK is leaving the EU so that makes us hegemonic. The bitterness of some Europeans, such as the one quoted, is palpable.

[nauseus]

1 hour ago, puck2 said:

explained the difference between the executive and legislative in the EU.

 

1 hour ago, puck2 said:

You don't get it.

7by7 patiently explained the difference between the executive and legislative in the EU.

 

 

 

An alternative to Juncker was Tony Blair. But his chance/credibility was squandered as Bush's pudel in the Iraq war. I don't defend Juncker. Democracy also means majority of .....and not UK hegemony.

 

It seems you deflect from the subject of this topic. The current UK government isn't prepared for  the Brexit for some reasons. Among them the discord of its members.

 

 

 

You still don't get it. The Commission is the only proposer of EU laws,  they are the power, EU laws don't come from anywhere else, pudel you!

[Orac]

 

The UK didn't support the appointment of Merkel's corrupt stooge, so that makes us hegemonic. The UK is leaving the EU so that makes us hegemonic. The bitterness of some Europeans, such as the one quoted, is palpable.

 

 

Merkel didn't support Junker either and was far keener for Barnier to head the commission. It was the European Parliament that were behind his appointment and Merkel was backed into a corner since she didn't want to be seen as going against the fully elected EU parliament.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/27/eu-democratic-bandwagon-juncker-president-wanted

 

[melvinmelvin]

 

There are some structural elements in EU that maybe could be improved, re democracy,

making the structure more similar to what you find in member states.

But,

the current structure works reasonably well and has done so for quite some time.

Dunno, but probably not worth altering what is working reasonably well.

 

There are some areas in which the EC has the last word re lawmaking.

The normal legislature must be consulted, by the final say stays with the Comm.

(off the top of my head, issues dealing with state monopolies is an area where the Comm. has the uppper hand)

(unless it has changed relatively recently, I have stopped following details since I stopped working with this,

 happy to purge the brain of treaty nitty gritties and replace it with more usefull stuff)

 

If I were British I would not be so worried about market access/trade issues.

To the extent UK continues to come up with products and services that are sought after they will be bought.

If EUers enjoy Marmite, it would be pointless of EU to elevate fiscal (or other) barriers to prevent the sale of Marmite in EU.

 

Citizen rights is of course a fairly important issue to sort out.

 

My worries (if British):

 

Which effect would a Brexit have on the UK structure. WIll Scotland and NI vanish from the UK?

WHat would that mean for the remaining UK?

 

Wise or not wise to stay outside EU defence cooperation?

 

On the international scene; Is UK strong enough to have an impact outside of the EU block?

Would a Brexit reduce or enhance UKs role?

(the empire where the sun never sets and the previous coal supremacy are becoming a bit faded now,

 not obvious that a lone rider would do well.

 

 

(haven't seen it mentioned anywhere but there are a host of European activities in which I assume UK

 would desire to continue to pay for and participate in;

 a vast portfolio of research programmes

 air traf. cooperation

 maritim coop

(the list is long, and importat))

 

[nauseus]

1 hour ago, Orac said:

 

 

Merkel didn't support Junker either and was far keener for Barnier to head the commission. It was the European Parliament that were behind his appointment and Merkel was backed into a corner since she didn't want to be seen as going against the fully elected EU parliament.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/27/eu-democratic-bandwagon-juncker-president-wanted

 

If Merkel hadn't have supported Junker he wouldn't be there. She changed her mind, or rather it was changed. And that screwed Cameron.

 

[melvinmelvin]

Compromising on candidates can sometimes have less than desirable results.

 

[rufanuf]

On 7/20/2017 at 6:24 PM, 7by7 said:

Since, having seen all your other attempts to show the EU is undemocratic shot down in flames, you resort to saying it's undemocratic because the other 27 can outvote us, or one of them can use their veto to block us; it's difficult to see what other conclusion can be drawn.

 

BTW, you should read Can the UK veto new EU laws? You will see that there are very few areas where the veto can be used.

 

A far truer democracy? You can't mean the UK as our second chamber is unelected whereas in those of the other 27 who also have bicameral legislatures the second chamber is elected! In those which have unicameral legislatures the one and only chamber is, of course, elected.

 

The UK is the only EU member whose legislature has an unelected chamber.

 

You seem to be echoing Chamberlain when in 1938 he talked of a quarrel in a far-away country between people of whom we know nothing! Although I am not, of course, saying in anyway that Brexit will lead to war.

 

An opinion to which you are entitled, of course. But I believe it is not one shared by many. Even some of those in the UK who voted for Brexit are now having second thoughts! Although, to be fair, some of those who voted Remain have since changed their minds as well.

One of many polls to show this: Does your area regret voting for Brexit? City-by-city breakdown of our major EU referendum survey

 

Personally, despite being labelled by you as "EU Neo Liberal Socialist with a chip on their soldier (sic)" I agree with the sentiments of Winston Churchill, as expressed both before the war and after; such as his speech in Zurich on the I9th September 1946.

 

At the time of that speech, Churchill did not foresee the UK joining this 'kind of United States of Europe.' At the time he envisaged a triumvirate for the maintenance of world order consisting of the Commonwealth as a unit, the United States and a united Europe, A view he came to change as the British Empire disintegrated.

 

See A Euro-sceptic? Churchill? Never

 

But maybe you consider Churchill to have been a Neo Liberal Socialist with a chip on his shoulder?

Long on explanation, short on practical reality. The reality is the EU is at best a flawed attempt to be a democratic institution. At it's worse something far more sinister.  As I've stated already, who EVER voted for foreign heads of state to interfere in the laws of another land?  NOT ONE EU CITIZEN. When you get your head around this, you will understand the mindset of those who voted Brexit, and would do so a thousand times regardless of any other argument.

Edited July 22, 2017 by rufanuf

[Rancid]

I think the idea of a united Europe is good in theory, however in reality it ended up with a fest of un-elected bureaucrats over-controlling everyone and everything whilst they had their own snouts firmly entrenched in the 5 star trough.

 

In time as the bankrupted EU sinks the UK will be very glad they got out. The only losers are the new age progressives, the sad replacement for the old left.

[rufanuf]

1 minute ago, Rancid said:

I think the idea of a united Europe is good in theory, however in reality it ended up with a fest of un-elected bureaucrats over-controlling everyone and everything whilst they had their own snouts firmly entrenched in the 5 star trough.

 

In time as the bankrupted EU sinks the UK will be very glad they got out. The only losers are the new age progressives, the sad replacement for the old left.

Spot on Rancid. it makes me laugh when defenders of the EU talk about the damage that will be done to the UKs economy by exiting the EU. The damage has already been done when we entered the shitfest, and now yes its going to cost us dear to escape, but escape we must, before we have no say whatsoever in our own nation.

[melvinmelvin]

1 hour ago, rufanuf said:

Long on explanation, short on practical reality. The reality is the EU is at best a flawed attempt to be a democratic institution. At it's worse something far more sinister.  As I've stated already, who EVER voted for foreign heads of state to interfere in the laws of another land?  NOT ONE EU CITIZEN. When you get your head around this, you will understand the mindset of those who voted Brexit, and would do so a thousand times regardless of any other argument.

There are many heads of states/politicians that endeavour to change legislation in other countries, look no further than those who would like to see changes in Thailand.

 

 

I have absolutely no problem understanding and respecting that a bunch of people voted Brexit and would do it again and again. They prefer the doing/running to take place in UK rather than across the channel.  To me that is an honest and fair approach which I can sympathise with, although I don't have to agree.

 

That aproach to Brexit is way better than those who take a look into their wallet and vote for the option that is most likely to result in high tide (or lesser ebb). Me thinks.

 

[rufanuf]

1 hour ago, melvinmelvin said:

There are many heads of states/politicians that endeavour to change legislation in other countries, look no further than those who would like to see changes in Thailand.

 

 

I have absolutetly noe problem understanding and respecting that a bunch of people voted Brexit and would do it again and again. They prefer the doing/running to take place in UK rather than across the channel.  To me that is an honest and fair approach which I can sympathise with, although I don't have to agree.

 

That aproach to Brexit is way better than those who take a look into their wallet and vote for the option that is most likely to result in high tide (or lesser ebb). Me thinks.

 

Couldn't agree more Melvin. I dont believe in BIG.GOV. Im not a socialist and I simply dont believe that ever bigger governmental structures are the solution to the worlds problems. Why would I? Thosuands of years of history have already demonstrated the outcomes of these types of notions. Seems human beings are doomed to just keep repeating their same mistakes.

[7by7]

20 hours ago, nauseus said:

I don't get it? Juncker was forced to resign as prime minister of tiny Luxembourg, after a spying scandal and he was also recently associated with corporate tax favoritism in Luxembourg. A truly devious and failed politician to be selected rather than elected as European Commission president, despite objection from the UK! Yes, unfortunately, he is a powerful man.

 

Yes, he did resign as prime Minister in 2013 over a scandal involving Luxemburg's security services, as Prime Minister he had the ultimate responsibility even though he was not personally involved: Luxembourg PM Juncker to resign over spy scandal.

 

Luxemburg has been a tax haven since at least the 1970s; a policy continued by Juncker while he was Prime Minister. But  Luxemburg is not the only tax haven in Europe: The Top 10 European Tax Havens.

 

But my purpose is not to defend Juncker; my purpose is to show that the EU is democratic. 

Quote

In 2014, the European People's Party (EPP) had Juncker as its lead candidate, or Spitzenkandidat, for the Presidency of the Commission in the 2014 elections. This marked the first time that the Spitzenkandidat process was employed.^[2] Juncker is the first President that prior to the election has campaigned as a candidate for the position, a process introduced with the Treaty of Lisbon. The EPP won 220 out of 751 seats in the Parliament. On 27 June 2014, the European Council officially nominated Juncker for the position,^[3][4][5] and on 15 July 2014, the European Parliament elected him with a majority of 422 votes from a total of 729 cast. (source)

Junker was not the only candidate, but he won the election and so was nominated by the Council, that nomination being approved by the European parliament. That he was not the UK's choice does not make the process undemocratic!

 

20 hours ago, nauseus said:

The European Commission is the EU executive. It proposes and enforces legislation and implements policies and controls the budget.

Why are you posting my previous explanation of the role of the Commission as if it were your own?

 

20 hours ago, nauseus said:

The European Commission is is the real power in the EU and rarely are its proposals denied or altered by the two councils or parliament.  

Whether your statement is true or not; the fact is that the Commission is subservient to the three democratic institutions and it's decisions can be overruled by those institutions.

 

20 hours ago, nauseus said:

Get it?

I got it a long time ago; thanks.

 

15 hours ago, nauseus said:

You (puck2) still don't get it. The Commission is the only proposer of EU laws,  they are the power, EU laws don't come from anywhere else, pudel you!

In the case of Ordinary Legislative Procedure, which is how the majority of EU laws are made, yes it is the Commission which proposes. It's proposals being prompted by input from various sources, including citizens groups, the European Parliament and member state's governments.

 

But this does not mean these proposals will become law. They can, and often are, amended by the European parliament, and some are rejected by both the Parliament and Council. How EU decisions are made

 

But I see I am essentially wasting my metaphorical breath; it is propaganda you believe, not the facts.

[7by7]

7 hours ago, nauseus said:

If Merkel hadn't have supported Junker he wouldn't be there. She changed her mind, or rather it was changed. And that screwed Cameron.

 

Juncker was nominated by 26 votes to 2.

 

Are you saying that Cameron's vote should count more than the 26 who voted for Juncker?

 

I though you were a believer in democracy?