Brexit discussion thread XII (Please read OP before posting)

Imreoir2

boring accountant wrote: »

Does this sound like a Civil Service to you? From the Commissions own website. Under any other system this would be an elected position.

“The Commission is the EU institution that has the monopoly on legislative initiative and important executive powers in policies such as competition and external trade. It is the principal executive body of the European Union and it is formed by a College of members composed of one Commissioner per Member State. The Commission oversees the application of Union law and respect for the Treaties by the Member States; it also chairs the committees responsible for the implementation of EU law. The former comitology system has been replaced by new legal instruments, namely implementing and delegated acts.“

The executive is not directly elected in Ireland. Neither our head of government nor ministerial posts are directly elected by the people.

The EU system is somewhat different but does run along largely similar lines. These are generalisations but the European Council (the heads of government of each member state) collectivly fulfils the role of head of Government for the EU. They appoint their cabinet with Comissioners (one per member state) who are polititions holding different briefs fulfilling the role of Cabinet Ministers who oversee the European Comission which is the EU's Civil Service. You also have another body, the Council of Ministers made up of Ministers from each member state which has input into administrative and policy matters.

The head of government of the EU (the European Council) is not directly elected but is instead appointed by the constitutional arangements of each member state. In our case, as with many EU member states this means they are appointed by the national parliament of member states. This means that the head of government of the EU is appointed in much the same way as our own head of government. The EU Cabinet is chosen in essentially the exact same way as our national cabinet with the head of government appointing their team and presenting it to parliament for ratification. The major difference is that the members of the EU cabinet (the Comissioners) do not tend to be members of the EU Parliament and are instead chosen by their home governments.

There are differences, but the current EU system is closer in form to our national system than what you are preposing as an alternative.

Professor Moriarty

boring accountant wrote: »

Is this supposed to be some kind of trump card? That’s a quirk of the system that happens when a leader resigns. It’s not how it functions at all times. Also, political parties generally pick the person they think is most likely to win re-election and if they don’t they will be punished for it at the ballot box.

It was a question in response to your assertion that:

Except in a normal election people know who the leader will be if a certain party wins.

I think you're missing the point. Political parties ultimately decide who gets into office e.g. Varadkar and Johnson. Ditto the EU Commission. Of course there is bargaining and political deals - just like when a cabinet is formed. Commissioners are appointed by elected politicians. In fact they have to jump through two political hoops - the Council and the Parliament. Both of which are composed of elected politicians.

boring accountant

Imreoir2 wrote: »

The executive is not directly elected in Ireland. Neither our head of government nor ministerial posts are directly elected by the people.

The Dáil is elected by the people and the leader of the controling party or coalition in parliament then forms a government and appoints their cabinet.

The EU system is somewhat different but does run along largely similar lines. These are generalisations but the European Council (the heads of government of each member state) collectivly fulfils the role of head of Government for the EU. They appoint their cabinet with Comissioners (one per member state) who are polititions holding different briefs fulfilling the role of Cabinet Ministers who oversee the European Comission which is the EU's Civil Service. You also have another body, the Council of Ministers made up of Ministers from each member state which has input into administrative and policy matters.

The head of government of the EU (the European Council) is not directly elected but is instead appointed by the constitutional arangements of each member state. In our case, as with many EU member states this means they are appointed by the national parliament of member states. This means that the head of government of the EU is appointed in much the same way as our own head of government. The EU Cabinet is chosen in essentially the exact same way as our national cabinet with the head of government appointing their team and presenting it to parliament for ratification. The major difference is that the members of the EU cabinet (the Comissioners) do not tend to be members of the EU Parliament and are instead chosen by their home governments.

There are differences, but the current EU system is closer in form to our national system than what you are preposing as an alternative.

In practical terms people don’t know who the president of the commission will be, many people don’t even know who they are once elected.

You can do side by side comparisons to other democracies all day but you’re only fooling yourself if you think it functions the same as a normal democracy in practice.

boring accountant

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

It was a question in response to your assertion that:

Except in a normal election people know who the leader will be if a certain party wins.

I think you're missing the point. Political parties ultimately decide who gets into office e.g. Varadkar and Johnson. Ditto the EU Commission. Of course there is bargaining and political deals - just like when a cabinet is formed. Commissioners are appointed by elected politicians. In fact they have to jump through two political hoops - the Council and the Parliament. Both of which are composed of elected politicians.

No you’re missing the point. The point is about bringing the EU closer to home and putting EU policy at the forefront of the national political debate. It’s also about getting prospective candidates to go directly to the people to make their pitch, not sitting in Brussels doing deals behind closed doors. It’s about having prospective candidates put forward a manifesto and engage in televised debates. None of this is present in the current system and I argue that it should be.

First Up

boring accountant wrote:

Comparing the EU Commissioner to a mere Civil Servant shows you are completely ignorant of the powers of the EU. Civil Servants don’t decide policy. I think you should take yourself up on your previous admonition to educate oneself about the EU.

You are confusing Commissioners with the Commission.

EU Commissioners (one per country) are the EU Cabinet - political appointees. Their role is equivalent to government minister. Each has a portfolio - e.g Phil Hogan is Ireland's.

The EU Commission is the secretariat that reports to them; the equivalent of the Civil Service.

CelticRambler

boring accountant wrote: »

It’s also about getting prospective candidates to go directly to the people to make their pitch, not sitting in Brussels doing deals behind closed doors. It’s about having prospective candidates put forward a manifesto and engage in televised debates.

Aha! So you mean we in the EU could have the chance to elect magnificent statesmen like David Cameron, Theresa May and Boris Johnson? Yes ... I can see how that alternative model is so much more efficient and "accountable" than what we poor eurocitizens have to put up with.

Professor Moriarty

boring accountant wrote: »

No you’re missing the point. The point is about bringing the EU closer to home and putting EU policy at the forefront of the national political debate. It’s also about getting prospective candidates to go directly to the people to make their pitch, not sitting in Brussels doing deals behind closed doors. It’s about having prospective candidates put forward a manifesto and engage in televised debates. None of this is present in the current system and I argue that it should be.

The EU Parliament is composed of directly elected politicians. The EU Commission is composed of people selected by directly elected politicians. The EU Council is composed of directly elected politicians. Sounds democratic to me. That's why people aren't concerned about EU election manifestos.

boring accountant

First Up wrote: »

You are confusing Commissioners with the Commission.

EU Commissioners (one per country) are the EU Cabinet - political appointees. Their role is equivalent to government minister. Each has a portfolio - e.g Phil Hogan is Ireland's.

The EU Commission is the secretariat that reports to them; the equivalent of the Civil Service.

When I said commissioner I meant president of the EU commission.

CelticRambler

Leroy42 wrote: »

And the most ironic thing of all is that they continually hark on about their own union, which is many more times more integrated and involves much greater loss of sovereignty then they complain about.

I find it even more ironic that "they" frequently express (implicit and explicit) admiration for the USA and Russia - both of which are unions/federations of multiple states/republics who have chosen (voluntarily or otherwise ) a wholesale loss of sovereignty in favour of the worst Brexiter fantasies attributed to the EU.

boring accountant

CelticRambler wrote: »

Aha! So you mean we in the EU could have the chance to elect magnificent statesmen like David Cameron, Theresa May and Boris Johnson? Yes ... I can see how that alternative model is so much more efficient and "accountable" than what we poor eurocitizens have to put up with.

Or maybe we would have elected a magnificent stateman like Jean Claude Drunker.

boring accountant

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

The EU Parliament is composed of directly elected politicians. The EU Commission is composed of people selected by directly elected politicians. The EU Council is composed of directly elected politicians. Sounds democratic to me. That's why people aren't concerned about EU election manifestos.

People aren’t concerned? Can you read minds now too? People don’t have a choice in the matter.

Professor Moriarty

boring accountant wrote: »

People aren’t concerned? Can you read minds now too? People don’t have a choice in the matter.

Indeed they very much do. The 2019 EP elections in Britain were dominated by the EU. Which is why the Brexit Party won a majority of British seats.

boring accountant

CelticRambler wrote: »

I find it even more ironic that "they" frequently express (implicit and explicit) admiration for the USA and Russia - both of which are unions/federations of multiple states/republics who have chosen (voluntarily or otherwise ) a wholesale loss of sovereignty in favour of the worst Brexiter fantasies attributed to the EU.

No what’s more ironic is that the average EU member state is more pro Russia than any Brexiter. You’re just parroting US scaremongering about Russia without even knowing it. It’s really only the US and it’s satellite the UK that has this anti Russian bias. Germany, Italy and France are more than happy to do business with Putin.

First Up

boring accountant wrote:

When I said commissioner I meant president of the EU commission.

I see.

Jizique

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Indeed they very much do. The 2019 EP elections in Britain were dominated by the EU. Which is why the Brexit Party won a majority of British seats.

They did not win a majority of British (or even English) seats.
The disruptive hooligans will be gone soon anyway, the only bright spot.

boring accountant

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Indeed they very much do. The 2019 EP elections in Britain were dominated by the EU. Which is why the Brexit Party won a majority of British seats.

They very much don’t compared to the system I’m proposing where they would have the ultimate say and where the candidate would actually have to come out and campaign.

Professor Moriarty

Jizique wrote: »

They did not win a majority of British (or even English) seats.
The disruptive hooligans will be gone soon anyway, the only bright spot.

Meant most seats. They are a disgrace. If I were British/English, I'd be deeply ashamed of them and their behaviour.

Imreoir2

boring accountant wrote: »

In practical terms people don’t know who the president of the commission will be, many people don’t even know who they are once elected.

You can do side by side comparisons to other democracies all day but you’re only fooling yourself if you think it functions the same as a normal democracy in practice.

That is your opinion, but your claim that in any other normal democratic system the head of government and cabinet would be directly elected is simply false. It is not the case in many EU countries, including Ireland.

CelticRambler

boring accountant wrote: »

the average EU member state is more pro Russia than any Brexiter. You’re just parroting US scaremongering about Russia without even knowing it. It’s really only the US and it’s satellite the UK that has this anti Russian bias.

What "parroting" and what "bias" was there in my post? The USA is a union of individual states. Fact. The Russian Federation is a federation of individual republics and other state-like entities. Fact.

Both are governed by a leader chosen through a less-than transparent, less-than democratic process (I would argue the US electoral college is significantly less democratic than the Russian system); both devote huge amounts of their nation's resources to their military machine at the expense of quality-of-life investments; and both are about as far from the Brexiters' "take back control" message as you can get - including your idealistic notion of directly elected members of cabinet/equivalent.

Professor Moriarty

boring accountant wrote: »

They very much don’t compared to the system I’m proposing where they would have the ultimate say and where the candidate would actually have to come out and campaign.

I think people don't want too many elections or more campaigning. The present system probably suits the vast majority of people as they simply trust the EU to people they elect to national parliament. They also get their say every five years for the EP. It's more than enough as evidenced by voter turnout. 65% for last GE versus 49% for the EP election.

Strazdas

Imreoir2 wrote: »

That is your opinion, but your claim that in any other normal democratic system the head of government and cabinet would be directly elected is simply false. It is not the case in many EU countries, including Ireland.

Indeed, the UK cabinet is not hired or elected by the British electorate. People merely vote to send an MP to Parliament, nothing else.....they have absolutely zero input to who the PM or cabinet ministers are.

First Up

Strazdas wrote:

Indeed, the UK cabinet is not hired or elected by the British electorate. People merely vote to send an MP to Parliament, nothing else.....they have absolutely zero input to who the PM or cabinet ministers are.

That's how representative democracy works. We elect people to make decisions; if we don't like the results we can elect others.

The President of the EU commission (that someone here seems angry about) is nominated by a council comprising the elected Prime Ministers of each member state and confirmed by the European Parliament which is elected by the voters of each member state.

A bit less direct than appointing a village headman I agree but a union of 27 countries needs something more elaborate (even it that goes over the head of some.)

listermint

boring accountant wrote: »

No what’s more ironic is that the average EU member state is more pro Russia than any Brexiter. You’re just parroting US scaremongering about Russia without even knowing it. It’s really only the US and it’s satellite the UK that has this anti Russian bias. Germany, Italy and France are more than happy to do business with Putin.

Where do you make this up from ?


You've spent the last two pages spinning about the council and the commission and getting it wrong now your making up facts .

Professor Moriarty

listermint wrote: »

Where do you make this up from ?


You've spent the last two pages spinning about the council and the commission and getting it wrong now your making up facts .

In fact, 67% of German people, 64% of French people and 54% of Italian people have a negative view of Russia. Also, the EU, as a whole, has a less favourable view of Russia than the US.

Leroy42

Boring Accountant, are you suggesting that all the Commissioners etc should be directly elected? Surely that would only increase the power of the likes of France and Germany?

Any decision that the EU ultimately makes is at some stage agreed by the Government. And its implementation is then fully in the hands of the government (the bogs being a recent example. So we elect out government, do protect our interests in the EU and globally.

The people of the UK, with Brexit, have now said that they no longer want any transparency with trade talks or new laws, just that the current government, once elected, can do whatever they like.

The recent example of IDS being given a Lordship, or Zac Goldsmith & Nicky Morgan being gifted cabinet positions despite not winning any vote, shows that they haven't got a better deal at all.

Dyr

First Up wrote: »

The irrefutable counter argument to all of it is that the EU works. It has enabled the longest period of peace and prosperity Europe has ever enjoyed and has created an economic bloc that can compete with any other on the planet.
.

This Island was not prosperous or peaceful for most of its EEC/EC/EU membership. If you're going to attribute peace and prosperity to the EU do you accept the lack of it is also the responsibility of the EU?

Large swathes of Eastern Europe have never really enjoyed prosperity since they joined the EU.

We live in an era when peace is actually the norm globally, countries borders very rarely change through war anymore, this is not the great achievement people tend to make it out to be.

You conflated the European Comission with a civil service, I wouldnt go on about people failing to understand the EU if I was you.

But the bigger and far weirder point here is this: There's some people in Ireland who have a very strange reaction to any criticism of the EU, resulting in Goebbels like rants about how wonderful everything is. Willfully sticking your head into the sand is not going to solve any of the problems Europe faces.

The Eastern members of the EU didn't enjoy rapid prosperity simply because the west robbed those countries of their most talented and motivated workers when they were given the open door treatment in Germany, UK & Ireland plus some other countries.
It's a wonder that some didn't become complete basket cases after losing so many talented people.

Imreoir2

Bambi wrote: »

You conflated the European Comission with a civil service, I wouldnt go on about people failing to understand the EU if I was you.

The European Comission is a civil service, overseen by Comissioners which act essentially as cabinet ministers.

RobMc59

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The Eastern members of the EU didn't enjoy rapid prosperity simply because the west robbed those countries of their most talented and motivated workers when they were given the open door treatment in Germany, UK & Ireland plus some other countries.
It's a wonder that some didn't become complete basket cases after losing so many talented people.

That's a novel way to describe free movement !

Imreoir2

RobMc59 wrote: »

That's a novel way to describe free movement !

It's a bit one sided too. Freedom of movement allowed a lot of citizens from eastern Europe to improve their quality of life, support their families at home and build up the capital to start their own business at home a few years down the line.