Ursula Von Der Leyen - addressing the Oireachtas yesterday. Opinions on her speech?

Look, I'll answer the questions then.

No.

Appointed.

---

You can compare Ursula to parliamentary MPs all you wish, but the latter are at least elected and can be removed via a public vote.

Those who are elected via the public vote (i.e. EU MEPs) have no power whatsoever. The so-called "parliament" is just a talking shop. All the laws are created by Ursula and her similarly appointed team (i.e. the modern day politburo).

I repeat: your comparison is faulty.

That sounds like excellent legislation to me.

My point stands.

Limitations are always needed on legislation. For instance: if there were no limits, you would have an almost permanent and constant stream of byelections because noisy groups would start petitions left, right, and centre. Clearly after an MP is elected, he / she should only be removed if there is evidence of wrongdoing. This makes the legislation viable and practical, rather than something open to abuse.

That's the first point. Second, you're missing the wider point.

Matt Hancock was elected as an MP, and can be removed at the next election. If indeed he is found to have committed some form of wrongdoing, he can be called to a byelection by that legislation.

None of those three criteria apply to Ursula von der Leyen.

To summarise:

• Unlike Matt Hancock, Ursula was appointed.
• Unlike Matt Hancock, Ursula will not be subject to a democratic election by the peoples of Europe.
• Unlike Matt Hancock, there is no public mechanism within Europe for citizens to recall Ursula and subject her to a public vote.

And just to make it even worse, Matt Hancock is not the sole initiator of legislation in Westminster, but Ursula von der Leyen - the appointed and anointed one - can, in conjunction with the other appointed Commissioners, and is the sole body for creating legislation that impacts 500+ million people.

Look, would you approve of a scenario in which Matt Hancock was appointed as your MP, could not be removed at the next election, and who was at the same time the head of a body that initiated legislation for 65 million people in the UK? (And the UK parliament had no legally binding veto on any of that legislation).

If you are against that, then you are against Ursula von der Leyen's position too, and the structure within which she occupies.

Your comparison is utterly flawed. At this stage I have to assume you're just hoping to be right.

The sheer acrobatics you're going through to justify the unjustifiable is astonishing.

Go and re-read my post. Your position is in denial.

It's quite obvious to me that, if the EU structure were recommended in each member state at the national level, nobody would accept it.

To take the case of Ireland: imagine that there was a referendum on political reform in this country and it proposed creating an unelected Commission of 27 politicians, all of whom are appointed by a council and cannot be removed by public vote, and who unilaterally decide legislation for everyone in this country.

I'm certain - 100% certain - that the turnout would be massive, and that it would be rejected in the mid-to-late 90% figure. And the reasons for its rejection would be clear - that this is a positively anti-democratic structure.

Would you accept it? Would anyone reading this post accept that structure in this country?

And if we can see it at the national level, then we can see it at any level - including the EU level.

Ursula von der Leyen was unpopular in her own country of Germany and was a disaster as Minister for Defence (and linked to various scandals). Yet she gets swooped in to become EU Commission President to oversee and initiate legislation for half a billion people.

It's an absolute farce. How anyone can justify this structure of appointments is beyond me.

They are the sole body to propose legislation. Therefore, it acts unilaterally. And its legislation cannot be amended / vetoed in a legally binding manner by the EU parliament.

I never said the EU was a nation state. But Guy Verhofstadt and others have already recommended changing the name of the commission to the "EU Government". Make of that what you will.

The rest of your post does not undermine any of the points I made re: Ursula von der Leyen. It's largely commentary about the history of faux attempts at reform and respective failures to date.

On your final point, I wish to see the structure crumble but not states of Europe working together. We can have both. It doesn't have to be EU or nothing. That's a false dichotomy.

Farage says in the video that we don't yet have all the information.

The important part was the 600,000 euros and its links to Qatari bribery.

It's yet another financial scandal to rock this institution.