|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Feb 23, 2019 18:09:16 GMT
The point is Rip, irrespective of whether legislation is rejected, 4 it is just NOT debated, scrutinised in the way the UK Parliament operates.....look at the passage of the Brexit legislation 2 There is a general concensus in what they are trying to do 1 Legislation is top down 3 The UK population will never relate to Brussels.... we'd prefer independence and Sovereignty....we can just about relate to our current UK system. 6 There is no number 5 Looking only at the the parliamentary process, it seems to function in a pretty similar way to the UK Parliament as far as I can tell - legislation is present, debated, then voted on. The Commission is the EU's executive. Even within the EU's decision making structure, and taking the Council and Parliament together as a bicameral legislature, its powers are quite circumscribed compared to the UK Parliament. ... They can only debate legislation proposed by the Commission. www.quora.com/What-are-the-differences-in-powers-between-the-European-Parliament-and-the-British-Parliament
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Feb 23, 2019 20:13:02 GMT
Their budget. Where do you think? There are 751 elected MEPs, 28 elected heads of state and 28 unelected commissioners involved in EU law making. 28/751 are unelected, 3.7%. But that is apparently undemocratic according to leave voters! Here we have 650 elected mps, 1 unelected queen and 800 unelected peers. 801/1451 are unelected or over 55%. Which is more democratic??? You really don’t understand politics, history or finance do you. Have you ever had an original thought of your own? You were complaining that the EU has 50,000 people working for it that were unelected. You were implying this was a bad thing and showed it was undemocratic. I debunked the myth that the EU is less democratic than our own administration. Rather than respond to the point I made, you try to insult me. I know who came about better in this exchange!
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Feb 23, 2019 20:21:18 GMT
Their budget. Where do you think? There are 751 elected MEPs, 28 elected heads of state and 28 unelected commissioners involved in EU law making. 28/751 are unelected, 3.7%. But that is apparently undemocratic according to leave voters! Here we have 650 elected mps, 1 unelected queen and 800 unelected peers. 801/1451 are unelected or over 55%. Which is more democratic??? The 751 mep's do not have the authority to change laws imposed by the commission or initiate legislation. It either accepts or can try to compromise on laws etc that the council puts forward.. The 28 Headfs of State have no authority to change laws or regulations imposed by the commission. They can advise or offer amendments but in itself can not initiate and pass legislation or change it at national level. The 28 unelected commissioners have the say and ride the most lucrative gravy train on the planet. Here we have 650 elected mp's who have the absolute authority on legislation. 800 unelected peers can advise and try to amend but the final say is the elected parliament. The Queen is apolitical and only signs Royal Ascent to passed legislation, whichever party is in government. So its clear that national parliaments are more democratic than the gravy train You forgot the veto to override what you don’t like. And that heads of state set the agenda for the Commission of course. You forgot that absolutely crucial bit of information. Weird how Bigjohnritchie liked your comment but contradicted it with his though....oh well
|
|
|
Post by pearo on Feb 23, 2019 20:57:37 GMT
You really don’t understand politics, history or finance do you. Have you ever had an original thought of your own? You were complaining that the EU has 50,000 people working for it that were unelected. You were implying this was a bad thing and showed it was undemocratic. I debunked the myth that the EU is less democratic than our own administration. Rather than respond to the point I made, you try to insult me. I know who came about better in this exchange! There you go again with a purposeful misquote, I said that there were 10,000 unelected staff at the EU that earn £50,000 per annum more than any of our democratically elected MPs.On this thread alone the amount of times your posts have been shown to be spurious, duplicitous or just bare faced lies are numerous. You carry on thinking you’ve won your exchanges, others on here may choose to believe differently, me? “ I couldn’t possibly say “
|
|
|
Post by potteringermany on Feb 23, 2019 22:07:07 GMT
You were complaining that the EU has 50,000 people working for it that were unelected. You were implying this was a bad thing and showed it was undemocratic. I debunked the myth that the EU is less democratic than our own administration. Rather than respond to the point I made, you try to insult me. I know who came about better in this exchange! There you go again with a purposeful misquote, I said that there were 10,000 unelected staff at the EU that earn £50,000 per annum more than any of our democratically elected MPs.On this thread alone the amount of times your posts have been shown to be spurious, duplicitous or just bare faced lies are numerous. You carry on thinking you’ve won your exchanges, others on here may choose to believe differently, me? “ I couldn’t possibly say “
|
|
|
Post by RipRoaringPotter on Feb 23, 2019 23:44:43 GMT
Looking only at the the parliamentary process, it seems to function in a pretty similar way to the UK Parliament as far as I can tell - legislation is present, debated, then voted on. The Commission is the EU's executive. Even within the EU's decision making structure, and taking the Council and Parliament together as a bicameral legislature, its powers are quite circumscribed compared to the UK Parliament. ... They can only debate legislation proposed by the Commission. www.quora.com/What-are-the-differences-in-powers-between-the-European-Parliament-and-the-British-ParliamentIf they can only debate, how did they "reject" that copyright law?
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Feb 24, 2019 0:23:39 GMT
If they can only debate, how did they "reject" that copyright law? . I've not looked into it but Just a very minor example Rip, it operates as I've explained on accepted concensus . Any luck finding statistics, or examples of scrutiny, introduction of bills or leaders( ministers?) being held to account. You think it's a good forum then ?. Do we need two parliaments? Don't forget that the EU one is supreme.....so it's fine to favour it if you favour giving up your sovereignty ( and democracy)
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Feb 24, 2019 8:38:17 GMT
You were complaining that the EU has 50,000 people working for it that were unelected. You were implying this was a bad thing and showed it was undemocratic. I debunked the myth that the EU is less democratic than our own administration. Rather than respond to the point I made, you try to insult me. I know who came about better in this exchange! There you go again with a purposeful misquote, I said that there were 10,000 unelected staff at the EU that earn £50,000 per annum more than any of our democratically elected MPs.On this thread alone the amount of times your posts have been shown to be spurious, duplicitous or just bare faced lies are numerous. You carry on thinking you’ve won your exchanges, others on here may choose to believe differently, me? “ I couldn’t possibly say “ My apologies. 10,000 not 50,000. And only 28 are unelected law makers, the rest are civil servants. We have over 330,000 civil servants here, all unelected of course. The stats still favour my argument and not yours. Or do you think we should be electing all 330000 civil servants!?
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Feb 24, 2019 8:43:47 GMT
If they can only debate, how did they "reject" that copyright law? . I've not looked into it but Just a very minor example Rip, it operates as I've explained on accepted concensus . Any luck finding statistics, or examples of scrutiny, introduction of bills or leaders( ministers?) being held to account. You think it's a good forum then ?. Do we need two parliaments? Don't forget that the EU one is supreme.....so it's fine to favour it if you favour giving up your sovereignty ( and democracy) When we leave, we will still do the majority of our trade with the EU and so we will have to follow their rules (that we were a huge part in putting together and could have vetoed/changed whilst a member) but we will have no say over them anymore. Plus we will have hugely depleted power and influence in the wider world when we leave and so less able to influence international treaties and strategies we will be following and signing up to. Therefore we will have less sovereignty over laws and regulations we will be abiding by once we leave.
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Feb 24, 2019 8:46:12 GMT
There you go again with a purposeful misquote, I said that there were 10,000 unelected staff at the EU that earn £50,000 per annum more than any of our democratically elected MPs.On this thread alone the amount of times your posts have been shown to be spurious, duplicitous or just bare faced lies are numerous. You carry on thinking you’ve won your exchanges, others on here may choose to believe differently, me? “ I couldn’t possibly say “ Yes, we have seen that the cost to administer Brexit outweighs the false sum put on the side of Boris’ bus
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Feb 24, 2019 8:53:46 GMT
Looking only at the the parliamentary process, it seems to function in a pretty similar way to the UK Parliament as far as I can tell - legislation is present, debated, then voted on. Not at all, it doesn't function in the same way at all. Not adverserial, no prime minister, concensus, not meant to be the same as ours.listenn says , he's been just because it's called a Parliament does not mean it is the same as ours ... just like a Withdrawal bill may not mean that we withdraw Don’t try to hold out our parliament as some bastion of democracy! The mere fact meps are elected with proportional representation puts them streets ahead in the democratic race compared to our first past the post system. The fact elected heads of state propose commissioners shows that these commissioners are effectively voice boxes for the head of state of each member state. So the legislative agenda comes from elected heads of state.
|
|
|
Post by bathstoke on Feb 24, 2019 9:18:44 GMT
There you go again with a purposeful misquote, I said that there were 10,000 unelected staff at the EU that earn £50,000 per annum more than any of our democratically elected MPs.On this thread alone the amount of times your posts have been shown to be spurious, duplicitous or just bare faced lies are numerous. You carry on thinking you’ve won your exchanges, others on here may choose to believe differently, me? “ I couldn’t possibly say “ My apologies. 10,000 not 50,000. And only 28 are unelected law makers, the rest are civil servants. We have over 330,000 civil servants here, all unelected of course. The stats still favour my argument and not yours. Or do you think we should be electing all 330000 civil servants!? After years of undermining the Civil Service & driving away many of the cleverest & brightest, the government is now desperately trying to recruit anyone that wants the job of forcing through Brexit. In 2012 Francis Maude systematically put into motion the dissemblance of the civil service. Hundreds of years of evolution undone & we made him a Baron for it. Now we will have to rebuild it. All done on a Conservative watch...
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Feb 24, 2019 9:26:07 GMT
. I've not looked into it but Just a very minor example Rip, it operates as I've explained on accepted concensus . Any luck finding statistics, or examples of scrutiny, introduction of bills or leaders( ministers?) being held to account. You think it's a good forum then ?. Do we need two parliaments? Don't forget that the EU one is supreme.....so it's fine to favour it if you favour giving up your sovereignty ( and democracy) When we leave, we will still do the majority of our trade with the EU and so we will have to follow their rules (that we were a huge part in putting together and could have vetoed/changed whilst a member) but we will have no say over them anymore. Plus we will have hugely depleted power and influence in the wider world when we leave and so less able to influence international treaties and strategies we will be following and signing up to. Therefore we will have less sovereignty over laws and regulations we will be abiding by once we leave. We've done it before Oggy. They also have to follow our rules, just as two independent Sovereign countries have to
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Feb 24, 2019 9:28:36 GMT
Not at all, it doesn't function in the same way at all. Not adverserial, no prime minister, concensus, not meant to be the same as ours.listenn says , he's been just because it's called a Parliament does not mean it is the same as ours ... just like a Withdrawal bill may not mean that we withdraw Don’t try to hold out our parliament as some bastion of democracy! The mere fact meps are elected with proportional representation puts them streets ahead in the democratic race compared to our first past the post system. The fact elected heads of state propose commissioners shows that these commissioners are effectively voice boxes for the head of state of each member state. So the legislative agenda comes from elected heads of state. I have not held our Parliament as a bastion of democracy. I once started a thread about abolishing the H of L. I believe in proportion Al representation....But that is exactly what you do with the EU, which is simply s top down dictatorial bureacracy that has a mission to implement Ever Closer Union towards a United States of Europe
|
|
|
Post by RipRoaringPotter on Feb 24, 2019 9:32:38 GMT
If they can only debate, how did they "reject" that copyright law? . I've not looked into it but Just a very minor example Rip, it operates as I've explained on accepted concensus . Any luck finding statistics, or examples of scrutiny, introduction of bills or leaders( ministers?) being held to account. You think it's a good forum then ?. Do we need two parliaments? Don't forget that the EU one is supreme.....so it's fine to favour it if you favour giving up your sovereignty ( and democracy) Democratically-elected politicians get together and debate the issues of the day. In that way it seems to function roughly how I would expect a Parliament to function - obviously no two parliaments are the same so there are differences with the UK Parliament for sure. But being different to the UK parliament doesn't automatically make it useless. I'm not entirely sure what you're after in terms of examples, but here's the video of the EU scrutinizing the appointment of Martin Selmayr, voting on the CETA agreement, rejecting ACTA, and discussing Brexit.
|
|
|
Post by harryburrows on Feb 24, 2019 10:22:07 GMT
Don’t try to hold out our parliament as some bastion of democracy! The mere fact meps are elected with proportional representation puts them streets ahead in the democratic race compared to our first past the post system. The fact elected heads of state propose commissioners shows that these commissioners are effectively voice boxes for the head of state of each member state. So the legislative agenda comes from elected heads of state. I have not held our Parliament as a bastion of democracy. I once started a thread about abolishing the H of L. I believe in proportion Al representation....But that is exactly what you do with the EU, which is simply s top down dictatorial bureacracy that has a mission to implement Ever Closer Union towards a United States of Europe Principly it's not the EU that's the problem it's the commission .
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Feb 24, 2019 12:53:16 GMT
. I've not looked into it but Just a very minor example Rip, it operates as I've explained on accepted concensus . Any luck finding statistics, or examples of scrutiny, introduction of bills or leaders( ministers?) being held to account. You think it's a good forum then ?. Do we need two parliaments? Don't forget that the EU one is supreme.....so it's fine to favour it if you favour giving up your sovereignty ( and democracy) Democratically-elected politicians get together and debate the issues of the day. In that way it seems to function roughly how I would expect a Parliament to function - obviously no two parliaments are the same so there are differences with the UK Parliament for sure. But being different to the UK parliament doesn't automatically make it useless. I'm not entirely sure what you're after in terms of examples, but here's the video of the EU scrutinizing the appointment of Martin Selmayr, voting on the CETA agreement, rejecting ACTA, and discussing Brexit. I've had a quick perusal and again we will have to agree to disagree. No introduction of legislation, no ( in my opinion) real debate with any conclusive end point/ decision. Interestingly the Selmayr one only came about because Juncker flounced the appointment rules
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Feb 24, 2019 18:44:28 GMT
Brexit delayed to 2021 ( link) If you're suffering from Brexit fatigue; you ain't seen nothing yet!
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Feb 24, 2019 18:46:57 GMT
Brexit delayed to 2021 ( link) If you're suffering from Brexit fatigue; you ain't seen nothing yet! 'Could be' you naughty boy .... I think the Samaritans will be busy if it is.
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Feb 24, 2019 18:55:51 GMT
Brexit delayed to 2021 ( link) If you're suffering from Brexit fatigue; you ain't seen nothing yet! Personally, I think that could be right Partick. The further we move away from the Referendum result the less the passion and the easier it is to convince ( if any convincing is needed by then)people to accept Remain in whatever guise.....in other words are people really bothered about decisions made over five years previously? The EU have always played the long game....as long as the direction of travel is right the ' ever" in Ever Closer Union means just that. In my opinion a disgraceful state of affairs for democracy
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Feb 24, 2019 18:58:19 GMT
Paul Mason writing pre Referendum on the left wing case for Brexit........it's a shame that there hasn't been a prominent politician on the left who has presented the case.... Labour will regret it. "The leftwing case for Brexit is strategic and clear. The EU is not – and cannot become – a democracy. Instead, it provides the most hospitable ecosystem in the developed world for rentier monopoly corporations, tax-dodging elites and organised crime. It has an executive so powerful it could crush the leftwing government of Greece; a legislature so weak that it cannot effectively determine laws or control its own civil service. A judiciary that, in the Laval and Viking judgments, subordinated workers’ right to strike to an employer’s right do business freely. The EU, politically, begins to look more and more like a gerrymandered state, where the politically immature electorates of eastern Europe can be used – as Louis Napoleon used the French peasantry – as a permanent obstacle to liberalism and social justice. The EU’s economic failure is fuelling racism and the ultra right. www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/may/16/brexit-eu-referendum-boris-johnson-greece-tory
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Feb 24, 2019 22:06:45 GMT
Mrs May is still droning inanely on about leaving on 29th March, I bloody hope not. There can't be anyone left standing who still thinks its a good idea. Except for perhaps James Dyson who has moved his opo. to Singapore anyway and that 'Tim' bloke from Wetherspoons they keep wheeling out (since there is no one else) and I'll give him this, he's smart enough to realise his 3rd rate theme pubs are populated solely by his voters at 10am on week day mornings
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Feb 25, 2019 8:31:19 GMT
I agree with these two;
It's now a question of democracy.
|
|
|
Post by probably on Feb 25, 2019 8:43:34 GMT
Brexit delayed until 2021.
Labour could not force a General Election and Tories will cling on until the bitter death.
Theresa May replaced in May/June 2019.
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Feb 25, 2019 10:12:23 GMT
Mrs May is still droning inanely on about leaving on 29th March, I bloody hope not. There can't be anyone left standing who still thinks its a good idea. Except for perhaps James Dyson who has moved his opo. to Singapore anyway and that 'Tim' bloke from Wetherspoons they keep wheeling out (since there is no one else) and I'll give him this, he's smart enough to realise his 3rd rate theme pubs are populated solely by his voters at 10am on week day mornings and all the young remainers in the evenings. There's plenty still left standing wanting a no deal brexit, you're as biased reporting 'the facts' as the BBC
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Feb 25, 2019 12:01:20 GMT
Mrs May is still droning inanely on about leaving on 29th March, I bloody hope not. There can't be anyone left standing who still thinks its a good idea. Except for perhaps James Dyson who has moved his opo. to Singapore anyway and that 'Tim' bloke from Wetherspoons they keep wheeling out (since there is no one else) and I'll give him this, he's smart enough to realise his 3rd rate theme pubs are populated solely by his voters at 10am on week day mornings and all the young remainers in the evenings. There's plenty still left standing wanting a no deal brexit, you're as biased reporting 'the facts' as the BBC It was a cheap shot, I'll concede that much !
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Feb 25, 2019 14:21:26 GMT
Brexit delayed to 2021 ( link) If you're suffering from Brexit fatigue; you ain't seen nothing yet! Or maybe it won't be !
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Feb 25, 2019 14:33:13 GMT
Not that you would know this from BBC or Sky reporting.......
|
|
|
Post by RipRoaringPotter on Feb 25, 2019 15:31:27 GMT
I agree with these two; It's now a question of democracy. A delay is different to overturning the result - in the same way a delayed kick off is different to a game being canceled. Although amongst the knicker-wetting and false equivalence from UKIP politicians, it should still be remembered that having to delay the date of departure would still be a massive failure of governance. First and foremost from the government, who have wasted a fuckload of time both before and after the WA was agreed on with the EU. But also a failure of parliament, who have failed to meaningfully back any of the many Brexit plans that were put before them. What an absolute shower of incompetence.
|
|
|
Post by The Drunken Communist on Feb 25, 2019 16:20:41 GMT
A delay is different to overturning the result - in the same way a delayed kick off is different to a game being canceled. Although amongst the knicker-wetting and false equivalence from UKIP politicians, it should still be remembered that having to delay the date of departure would still be a massive failure of governance. First and foremost from the government, who have wasted a fuckload of time both before and after the WA was agreed on with the EU. But also a failure of parliament, who have failed to meaningfully back any of the many Brexit plans that were put before them. What an absolute shower of incompetence. Brexit was a vote to leave, not to get a deal. There's absolutely no reason at all to delay anything (Unless, of course, you're trying anything you can to stop Brexit from happening.)
|
|