FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > EP votes in favor of changes to the EU treaties
EP votes in favor of changes to the EU treaties
Jump to: Newest in thread
I guess there are more steps to actually enforce this.
But it goes on to prove the ultimate goal of EU - To form a United States of Europe 
We were all told that UK will not lose its sovereignty with EU. Now we will be told it might have, it it stayed in the EU and why it's a good thing.
It's surprising how very few people realise the simple fact that politicians are power hungry people. Having a single bureaucratic group governing most European countries is a wet dream for many politicians. I seriously hope this doesn't happen and European countries maintain their sovereignty. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Am I reading this right?
They have voted to remove the power of veto?
"
It has to be approved by the council but if they do approve then I think it comes into effect. Seems not all areas loose the veto but pretty close. The main area not affected is the right to veto on enlargement. Poor old Mr Barnier has not recovered from his melt down yet and then this happens. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
 |
By *ercuryMan 24 weeks ago
Grantham |
"Am I reading this right?
They have voted to remove the power of veto?
It has to be approved by the council but if they do approve then I think it comes into effect. Seems not all areas loose the veto but pretty close. The main area not affected is the right to veto on enlargement. Poor old Mr Barnier has not recovered from his melt down yet and then this happens. "
I'm reading all sorts on this.
The Bill mandates all member states to use the Euro. The six countries that opted out would have no choice now.
The Commision would set all laws over 65 aspects of law, including all environmental laws.
The power of member country veto would be removed. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ip2Man 24 weeks ago
Near Maidenhead |
Well let's see. What's the European Parliament doing today? Too many people don't know what the European Parliament does. I summarise a bit:
Key debates:
- Humanitarian situation in Gaza
- This is Europe - Debate with the Prime Minister of Bulgaria, Nikolay Denkov
Votes:
- Draft amending budget No 4/2023: Reduction in payment appropriations
- 2024 budgetary procedure
- European Globalisation Adjustment Fund
- EU/Montenegro Agreement: European Border and Coast Guard Agency
- EU/New Zealand Free Trade Agreement
- VAT: administrative cooperation arrangements, taxable persons, distance sales
- Sustainable use of plant protection products
- Proposals of the European Parliament for the amendment of the Treaties
- Court of Auditors staff appointments
- Negotiations on a status agreement on operational activities carried out by Frontex in Mauritania.
Debates:
- Rule of law in Spain
- Persecution of democrats in Hong Kong
- Cyprus: prevention of sanctions evasion and money laundering
- Copenhagen criteria & EU enlargement
- Pegasus and equivalent surveillance spyware
- Environment / nature: protection of pollinators
- Womens' rights in Iran
- The unlawful detention of President Mohamed Bazoum in Niger
- The killing of Tamaz Ginturi, a Georgian citizen, by Russia’s occupying forces in Georgia.
My point here is that the European Parliament does a lot of good things.
It spends quite some time talking about democratic freedoms around the world, because the EU is a peace project.
It covers things that pretty much everybody wants, like protecting bees.
As for the subject at hand. Some of the idea of "no veto" is already in place.
A blocking minority is a group of at least four countries who can block a proposal if those countries add up to at least 35% of the EU's total population.
The blocking minority is there so that one country on its own cannot stop a proposal.
Most of what the EU does is quite bland.
Most of the proposals are agreed by a combination of the approval of the European Parliament *and* the votes of the government ministers.
There is a balance of power between the European Commission, the European Parliament, and the national governments.
It's a democratic system that needs, most often:
- 55% of the member countries in favour, and
- the countries in favour to represent 65% of the EU's population.
It's set up this way to make sure that proposals are generally in the interest of the member countries, avoid selfish national interests, and have a high level of agreement.
There are some things where the usual procedure doesn't apply; it has to be unanimous instead. Pulse of Europe campaigned against this because it was seen as making EU decision-making unnecessarily slow.
The aim is to move some things, that presently have to be unanimous by government ministers, into the usual procedure, so that the European Parliament has more of a say.
If you're really interested, see the "REPORT on proposals of the European Parliament for the amendment of the Treaties" 7.11.2023 - (2022/2051(INL)). |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"But it goes on to prove the ultimate goal of EU - To form a United States of Europe "
Good.
The sooner the EU members realise they need to federate under a common legal system and currency and form a single superstate, the better. Small nations are easy pickings for the major movers and shakers worldwide.
Europe won't survive with small town thinking.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ip2Man 24 weeks ago
Near Maidenhead |
"But it goes on to prove the ultimate goal of EU - To form a United States of Europe
"
I do not think so. That would only happen if all the member countries want it. There's no imposition. No country can be made to sign up to a US of E if it doesn't want to.
The EU only does the things that are cross-border in nature and can only be best done together.
Everything else is the job of each country. Things like running income tax, defence, police, criminal justice, planning permissions, schools, elections, citizenship, television, radio and post are all done by each country.
If you really love EU legal text then look for the principles of conferral, subsidiarity and proportionality in article 5 of the Treaty on European Union. 
There are some things that the EU does that help national courts and national police.
Drug smuggling, for instance, is a big driver of crime and it affects health as well. So there's an EU agency called the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction.
The monitoring centre is in Lisbon. It's linked to national health and police services and other EU agencies like the European Medicines Agency. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ip2Man 24 weeks ago
Near Maidenhead |
"a common legal system"
There are a number of legal traditions around Continental Europe as well as the UK and Ireland.
Fortunately, EU law, that is its own source of law, is pretty flexible and has been able to accommodate them all.
Some people have feared that a continental style of law would gradually replace the three distinct legal systems in the UK.
The three legal systems in the UK are England & Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland.
I think this fear is misplaced, as is the fear of a US of E.
Ursula von der Leyen has suggested it could be organised in a more federal type structure like Switzerland or Germany. If it is a good idea and the member countries would like to, then they could.
For me, that's not a priority. What I would like to see instead is much more awareness of the good things that the EU does and why it matters.
For instance, what are the top two things the EU spends money on?
No, it's not meetings and buildings.
It's farming and regional development.
I would like to see that become more like common knowledge. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"a common legal system
There are a number of legal traditions around Continental Europe as well as the UK and Ireland.
Fortunately, EU law, that is its own source of law, is pretty flexible and has been able to accommodate them all.
Some people have feared that a continental style of law would gradually replace the three distinct legal systems in the UK.
The three legal systems in the UK are England & Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland.
I think this fear is misplaced, as is the fear of a US of E.
Ursula von der Leyen has suggested it could be organised in a more federal type structure like Switzerland or Germany. If it is a good idea and the member countries would like to, then they could.
For me, that's not a priority. What I would like to see instead is much more awareness of the good things that the EU does and why it matters.
For instance, what are the top two things the EU spends money on?
No, it's not meetings and buildings.
It's farming and regional development.
I would like to see that become more like common knowledge."
Then start a thread about it rather than hijacking one pointing out the vote that happened today. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"But it goes on to prove the ultimate goal of EU - To form a United States of Europe
Good.
The sooner the EU members realise they need to federate under a common legal system and currency and form a single superstate, the better. Small nations are easy pickings for the major movers and shakers worldwide.
Europe won't survive with small town thinking.
"
Why is forcing other countries to follow a set of law a good thing? Different countries have different values and different economic needs. Everything from their laws to taxation are written to make sure it works for that country. Forcing everyone to follow the rules set by Brussels is a downright authoritarian move to satisfy some power hungry people |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple 24 weeks ago
Brighton |
The irony is this is a self fulfilling prophecy. Leave warned about ever closer union and an eventual Federal/United States of Europe. But that would never have happened if the UK had remained, nor would a potential loss of veto or mandatory adoption of the Euro. For Federalists Brexit was a godsend. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The irony is this is a self fulfilling prophecy. Leave warned about ever closer union and an eventual Federal/United States of Europe. But that would never have happened if the UK had remained, nor would a potential loss of veto or mandatory adoption of the Euro. For Federalists Brexit was a godsend."
Whether this actually materialises or not, I think it proves the worries of many.
The part that I'm astounded by is 'The composition of the European Commission would be reduced to 15 individuals, meaning that not every member country would have its own commissioner'
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple 24 weeks ago
Brighton |
"I think it proves the worries of many."
As I said a self fulfilling prophecy. It will only happen (if it happens) because the UK is no longer a member. People need to understand cause and effect. Pointing and saying “see we were right” is actually wrong and misses the entire point that it simply would not have happened but voting leave actually enables it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ercuryMan 24 weeks ago
Grantham |
"The irony is this is a self fulfilling prophecy. Leave warned about ever closer union and an eventual Federal/United States of Europe. But that would never have happened if the UK had remained, nor would a potential loss of veto or mandatory adoption of the Euro. For Federalists Brexit was a godsend.
Whether this actually materialises or not, I think it proves the worries of many.
The part that I'm astounded by is 'The composition of the European Commission would be reduced to 15 individuals, meaning that not every member country would have its own commissioner'
"
They want to cut the power of the Eastern European nations, esp Hungary. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I think it proves the worries of many.
As I said a self fulfilling prophecy. It will only happen (if it happens) because the UK is no longer a member. People need to understand cause and effect. Pointing and saying “see we were right” is actually wrong and misses the entire point that it simply would not have happened but voting leave actually enables it."
As I said, whether it materialises or not (I don't think it will), it still confirms those worries.
To argue people need to understand cause and effect, whilst saying 'it absolutely would not happen' is nonsense, there is no way to know either way. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple 24 weeks ago
Brighton |
"I think it proves the worries of many.
As I said a self fulfilling prophecy. It will only happen (if it happens) because the UK is no longer a member. People need to understand cause and effect. Pointing and saying “see we were right” is actually wrong and misses the entire point that it simply would not have happened but voting leave actually enables it.
As I said, whether it materialises or not (I don't think it will), it still confirms those worries.
To argue people need to understand cause and effect, whilst saying 'it absolutely would not happen' is nonsense, there is no way to know either way. "
I disagree.
1. A USE would only happen (effect) because the UK was no longer part of the EU (cause).
2. The UK were the big player in the EU despite what some may think. No way the UK would have given up the veto, or adopted the Euro. You can see that from all the political rhetoric from both big parties for the years (decades) leading up to Brexit. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I think it proves the worries of many.
As I said a self fulfilling prophecy. It will only happen (if it happens) because the UK is no longer a member. People need to understand cause and effect. Pointing and saying “see we were right” is actually wrong and misses the entire point that it simply would not have happened but voting leave actually enables it.
As I said, whether it materialises or not (I don't think it will), it still confirms those worries.
To argue people need to understand cause and effect, whilst saying 'it absolutely would not happen' is nonsense, there is no way to know either way.
I disagree.
1. A USE would only happen (effect) because the UK was no longer part of the EU (cause).
2. The UK were the big player in the EU despite what some may think. No way the UK would have given up the veto, or adopted the Euro. You can see that from all the political rhetoric from both big parties for the years (decades) leading up to Brexit."
You're conflating what parliament have voted for and what the council will actually do.
The only reason I can see for this is to say 'it's the UKs fault'. I hate to break it to you but it can't possibly be the UKs fault, being that we have no vote. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Am I reading this right?
They have voted to remove the power of veto?
"
They have voted to begin formal discussions the process is fucking lengthy and will take time I think..but if the e.u wants it done. it will prioritise this.
It's not come at a good time for the Dutch elections.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Well let's see. What's the European Parliament doing today? Too many people don't know what the European Parliament does. I summarise a bit:
Key debates:
- Humanitarian situation in Gaza
- This is Europe - Debate with the Prime Minister of Bulgaria, Nikolay Denkov
Votes:
- Draft amending budget No 4/2023: Reduction in payment appropriations
- 2024 budgetary procedure
- European Globalisation Adjustment Fund
- EU/Montenegro Agreement: European Border and Coast Guard Agency
- EU/New Zealand Free Trade Agreement
- VAT: administrative cooperation arrangements, taxable persons, distance sales
- Sustainable use of plant protection products
- Proposals of the European Parliament for the amendment of the Treaties
- Court of Auditors staff appointments
- Negotiations on a status agreement on operational activities carried out by Frontex in Mauritania.
Debates:
- Rule of law in Spain
- Persecution of democrats in Hong Kong
- Cyprus: prevention of sanctions evasion and money laundering
- Copenhagen criteria & EU enlargement
- Pegasus and equivalent surveillance spyware
- Environment / nature: protection of pollinators
- Womens' rights in Iran
- The unlawful detention of President Mohamed Bazoum in Niger
- The killing of Tamaz Ginturi, a Georgian citizen, by Russia’s occupying forces in Georgia.
My point here is that the European Parliament does a lot of good things.
It spends quite some time talking about democratic freedoms around the world, because the EU is a peace project.
It covers things that pretty much everybody wants, like protecting bees.
As for the subject at hand. Some of the idea of "no veto" is already in place.
A blocking minority is a group of at least four countries who can block a proposal if those countries add up to at least 35% of the EU's total population.
The blocking minority is there so that one country on its own cannot stop a proposal.
Most of what the EU does is quite bland.
Most of the proposals are agreed by a combination of the approval of the European Parliament *and* the votes of the government ministers.
There is a balance of power between the European Commission, the European Parliament, and the national governments.
It's a democratic system that needs, most often:
- 55% of the member countries in favour, and
- the countries in favour to represent 65% of the EU's population.
It's set up this way to make sure that proposals are generally in the interest of the member countries, avoid selfish national interests, and have a high level of agreement.
There are some things where the usual procedure doesn't apply; it has to be unanimous instead. Pulse of Europe campaigned against this because it was seen as making EU decision-making unnecessarily slow.
The aim is to move some things, that presently have to be unanimous by government ministers, into the usual procedure, so that the European Parliament has more of a say.
If you're really interested, see the "REPORT on proposals of the European Parliament for the amendment of the Treaties" 7.11.2023 - (2022/2051(INL))."
.some waffle in here.
But there veto etc are specifically set for certain subjects.
Each subj3ct with a vote will either have the majority vote, to 2 cou try veto or even for example when it comes to trade deals. A single region of blegium blocked the Canada e.u trade deal for some time. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The irony is this is a self fulfilling prophecy. Leave warned about ever closer union and an eventual Federal/United States of Europe. But that would never have happened if the UK had remained, nor would a potential loss of veto or mandatory adoption of the Euro. For Federalists Brexit was a godsend."
You can not say this for certain.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple 24 weeks ago
Brighton |
"I think it proves the worries of many.
As I said a self fulfilling prophecy. It will only happen (if it happens) because the UK is no longer a member. People need to understand cause and effect. Pointing and saying “see we were right” is actually wrong and misses the entire point that it simply would not have happened but voting leave actually enables it.
As I said, whether it materialises or not (I don't think it will), it still confirms those worries.
To argue people need to understand cause and effect, whilst saying 'it absolutely would not happen' is nonsense, there is no way to know either way.
I disagree.
1. A USE would only happen (effect) because the UK was no longer part of the EU (cause).
2. The UK were the big player in the EU despite what some may think. No way the UK would have given up the veto, or adopted the Euro. You can see that from all the political rhetoric from both big parties for the years (decades) leading up to Brexit.
You're conflating what parliament have voted for and what the council will actually do.
The only reason I can see for this is to say 'it's the UKs fault'. I hate to break it to you but it can't possibly be the UKs fault, being that we have no vote. "
I think we are talking at cross purposes as you’ve lost me now? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple 24 weeks ago
Brighton |
"The irony is this is a self fulfilling prophecy. Leave warned about ever closer union and an eventual Federal/United States of Europe. But that would never have happened if the UK had remained, nor would a potential loss of veto or mandatory adoption of the Euro. For Federalists Brexit was a godsend.
You can not say this for certain.
"
Nothing is certain and you cannot predict the future but you can use the past to understand and get a good feel for how the future might pan out.
The UK were robustly anti federalisation and would certainly have argued against a USE and mandated use of the Euro. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The irony is this is a self fulfilling prophecy. Leave warned about ever closer union and an eventual Federal/United States of Europe. But that would never have happened if the UK had remained, nor would a potential loss of veto or mandatory adoption of the Euro. For Federalists Brexit was a godsend.
You can not say this for certain.
Nothing is certain and you cannot predict the future but you can use the past to understand and get a good feel for how the future might pan out.
The UK were robustly anti federalisation and would certainly have argued against a USE and mandated use of the Euro."
I dont perosnally think the uk being in there would have made a difference. We were in there for 25 years and out governments continued to do what the uk public did not want.
Which was part of the problem. Not acting on their electorates behalf but their self interest.
From what I can see mathematically the uk having meps in that vote wouldn't have made a difference to the voter turnout. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ip2Man 24 weeks ago
Near Maidenhead |
"The UK were the big player in the EU"
It was one of the big four that added up to just under 54% of the EU's population.
But only four countries with that much population wasn't enough to pass a qualified majority vote in the Council.
It needed 16 countries out of 28 in favour adding up to 65% of the population.
This is called the double majority.
Come on, the figures are published by the EU. There's no secret.
In the Council where government ministers and diplomats meet, the populations were:
Germany: 15.93%
France: 12.98%
UK: 12.61%
Italy: 11.81%.
In the European Parliament the MEPs seats out of 751 were:
Germany: 96
France: 74
UK: 73
Italy: 73
Source: "The European Union explained: How the European Union works" from the EU Publications Office.
Smaller countries are given more seats per head of population in the European Parliament.
The big four didn't have enough voting weight to pass anything on their own.
There is also Enhanced Cooperation that lets a group of 9 countries do more together.
When David Cameron objected to proposals to strengthen the euro currency, all the other countries except the Czech Republic went ahead without him.
It was a non-EU treaty called the Treaty on Stability and Governance and, like all EU treaties, there had to be a referendum in Ireland about it.
There is also the political reality that when Germany's chancellor speaks there's lots of press attention.
When it was Malta's turn, not so much. That's one of the things Jean Claude Juncker complained about.
He said the low attendance for Joseph Muscat was "ridiculous" and it was a shame because Juncker wanted to praise Malta's presidency.
The UK was certainly important in the EU. The idea that the UK was "steamrolled" in the EU is a myth.
The UK had the advantage of being one of only 3 member countries natively speaking English. The EU speaks English to the world.
The British were respected because they had something to offer, especially in fishing.
Now instead of talking about other countries, the British speak only about themselves.
After saying "goodbye and hello", the British have thrown away their own place at the table. It is a tragedy.
The proposal to change the voting system is important because it's been noticed and that's why it's on here.
Most of what the EU does is decided by the European Parliament and government ministers jointly. Some of it, like to do with tax, has to be unanimous by the ministers.
I don't think it's that big a deal to say, let's use the former more and the latter less. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple 24 weeks ago
Brighton |
"The irony is this is a self fulfilling prophecy. Leave warned about ever closer union and an eventual Federal/United States of Europe. But that would never have happened if the UK had remained, nor would a potential loss of veto or mandatory adoption of the Euro. For Federalists Brexit was a godsend.
You can not say this for certain.
Nothing is certain and you cannot predict the future but you can use the past to understand and get a good feel for how the future might pan out.
The UK were robustly anti federalisation and would certainly have argued against a USE and mandated use of the Euro.
I dont perosnally think the uk being in there would have made a difference. We were in there for 25 years and out governments continued to do what the uk public did not want.
Which was part of the problem. Not acting on their electorates behalf but their self interest.
From what I can see mathematically the uk having meps in that vote wouldn't have made a difference to the voter turnout."
But that ignores influence and veto. If USE was inevitable (I don’t think it was), the UK would never have been part of it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ip2Man 24 weeks ago
Near Maidenhead |
"If USE was inevitable (I don’t think it was), the UK would never have been part of it."
That was in the deal agreed by all 28 EU leaders including David Cameron before the referendum.
It said, assuming that the UK's referendum result is to stay in the EU, this is what we'll do.
Next time there's a new treaty, it'll say, "'Ever closer union' does not apply to the United Kingdom"!
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ip2Man 24 weeks ago
Near Maidenhead |
"'The composition of the European Commission would be reduced to 15 individuals, meaning that not every member country would have its own commissioner'"
That's okay to me because the European Commission has to be independent. It's staff have to promise to work with loyalty for all the member countries and to keep to the EU Staff Regulations.
They get checked for conflict of interest by the European Parliament.
It doesn't matter which country they're from. They're asked to do a job. Nationality doesn't come into it very much.
That's why European Parliament can sack the *entire* Commission with a two-thirds majority.
The European Parliament can't sack individual Commission staff because that could be abused to target a particular nationality.
I think the tradition that each country has one head Commissioner is not needed anymore.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ip2Man 24 weeks ago
Near Maidenhead |
"cut the power of the Eastern European nations, esp Hungary"
Hungary's behaviour is a problem because independent courts are needed for a democracy.
Without independent courts democracy doesn't exist.
The EU is only for democratic countries. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"'The composition of the European Commission would be reduced to 15 individuals, meaning that not every member country would have its own commissioner'
That's okay to me because the European Commission has to be independent. It's staff have to promise to work with loyalty for all the member countries and to keep to the EU Staff Regulations.
They get checked for conflict of interest by the European Parliament.
It doesn't matter which country they're from. They're asked to do a job. Nationality doesn't come into it very much.
That's why European Parliament can sack the *entire* Commission with a two-thirds majority.
The European Parliament can't sack individual Commission staff because that could be abused to target a particular nationality.
I think the tradition that each country has one head Commissioner is not needed anymore.
"
It may be OK with you, that doesn't mean it's ok with others who feel their country isn't represented.
Couple that with losing the power of veto on all but a single issue. That doesn't look pretty. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple 24 weeks ago
Brighton |
"'The composition of the European Commission would be reduced to 15 individuals, meaning that not every member country would have its own commissioner'
That's okay to me because the European Commission has to be independent. It's staff have to promise to work with loyalty for all the member countries and to keep to the EU Staff Regulations.
They get checked for conflict of interest by the European Parliament.
It doesn't matter which country they're from. They're asked to do a job. Nationality doesn't come into it very much.
That's why European Parliament can sack the *entire* Commission with a two-thirds majority.
The European Parliament can't sack individual Commission staff because that could be abused to target a particular nationality.
I think the tradition that each country has one head Commissioner is not needed anymore.
It may be OK with you, that doesn't mean it's ok with others who feel their country isn't represented.
Couple that with losing the power of veto on all but a single issue. That doesn't look pretty. "
Chill. It doesn't affect us |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"'The composition of the European Commission would be reduced to 15 individuals, meaning that not every member country would have its own commissioner'
That's okay to me because the European Commission has to be independent. It's staff have to promise to work with loyalty for all the member countries and to keep to the EU Staff Regulations.
They get checked for conflict of interest by the European Parliament.
It doesn't matter which country they're from. They're asked to do a job. Nationality doesn't come into it very much.
That's why European Parliament can sack the *entire* Commission with a two-thirds majority.
The European Parliament can't sack individual Commission staff because that could be abused to target a particular nationality.
I think the tradition that each country has one head Commissioner is not needed anymore.
It may be OK with you, that doesn't mean it's ok with others who feel their country isn't represented.
Couple that with losing the power of veto on all but a single issue. That doesn't look pretty.
Chill. It doesn't affect us "
I'm chilled 
It may not affect you, that doesn't mean it doesn't affect me |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ip2Man 24 weeks ago
Near Maidenhead |
"We were in there for 25 years and out governments continued to do what the uk public did not want."
Such as what?
Giving farmers a reasonable living?
Regional development like the new boat house for the rowing club in Swanage?
Making it easier for Brits to live and work and retire in other countries?
Stopping raw sewage on beaches?
Helping research on rare diseases?
Bringing in pet passports, that are mainly for farmers, not pet owners?
Helping to bring a peace to Northern Ireland?
Helping to keep dangerous childrens' toys out?
Helping to stop plant and animal diseases spreading?
Sanctions against North Korea and members of the Taliban?
Reducing bureaucracy on medicines, electronics and safety wear?
Breaking up monopolies using competition rules?
Making it easier to get compensation on delayed cross border travel?
Recognising disabled persons' parking permits?
Helping to trace bad food like salmonella in curry powder?
Oh yes, the EU has never done anything that anybody would want. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ip2Man 24 weeks ago
Near Maidenhead |
"It may be OK with you, that doesn't mean it's ok with others who feel their country isn't represented."
What does it matter in the executive bureaucratic arm? All those staff have promised to set aside their individual nationality anyway.
Want people to represent your country?
That's what the top table of national leaders is for.
That's what the Council of the European Union is for, where the governments and diplomats are.
That's what the European Parliament is for.
That's what the Committee of the Regions is for.
That's what the Economic and Social Committee is for.
National parliaments have a role, as well. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It may be OK with you, that doesn't mean it's ok with others who feel their country isn't represented.
What does it matter in the executive bureaucratic arm? All those staff have promised to set aside their individual nationality anyway.
Want people to represent your country?
That's what the top table of national leaders is for.
That's what the Council of the European Union is for, where the governments and diplomats are.
That's what the European Parliament is for.
That's what the Committee of the Regions is for.
That's what the Economic and Social Committee is for.
National parliaments have a role, as well."
You're pretty clued up on the EU and what the commissions role is.
It would appear that every other branch of the EU is for 'national interest' but not the commission according to you.
It seems pretty clear that you won't have a single bad word said about the EU.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple 24 weeks ago
Brighton |
"'The composition of the European Commission would be reduced to 15 individuals, meaning that not every member country would have its own commissioner'
That's okay to me because the European Commission has to be independent. It's staff have to promise to work with loyalty for all the member countries and to keep to the EU Staff Regulations.
They get checked for conflict of interest by the European Parliament.
It doesn't matter which country they're from. They're asked to do a job. Nationality doesn't come into it very much.
That's why European Parliament can sack the *entire* Commission with a two-thirds majority.
The European Parliament can't sack individual Commission staff because that could be abused to target a particular nationality.
I think the tradition that each country has one head Commissioner is not needed anymore.
It may be OK with you, that doesn't mean it's ok with others who feel their country isn't represented.
Couple that with losing the power of veto on all but a single issue. That doesn't look pretty.
Chill. It doesn't affect us
I'm chilled
It may not affect you, that doesn't mean it doesn't affect me "
Ooh mysterious |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ip2Man 24 weeks ago
Near Maidenhead |
The Commission has staff from lots of countries. I've met some of them in the European Parliament and on the streets in Brussels.
It's only heads of departments we're talking about.
Look at the alternative. The alternative is to create departments purely for the purpose of giving somebody a top job!
It's also to suggest that Commission staff go to work on a lie.
It's to believe that Commission staff promise to work for the whole - but actually they're doing nothing of the kind.
It's to believe that they're really spending all their time scheming to obtain selfish advantages for their own country.
The European Parliament questions the candidates for Commission jobs in public. I find it hard to believe that such bad faith is really there.
There's plenty wrong with the EU. The UK has never put in place a register of where people are living, even though I've already said what my address is on my driving licence and on my council tax.
That's why the UK never properly used the three month rule. If you're an EU citizen staying more than 3 months in another EU country then there can be conditions.
There's a lack of effective enforcement on the rule of law (eg Hungary). There's disagreements on migration and nuclear power. There's abuses of the human rights of migrants. I'm worried about the rise of the far right including in the UK.
The EU as a whole is not making sure enough that the ideals it stands for are there in practice. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The irony is this is a self fulfilling prophecy. Leave warned about ever closer union and an eventual Federal/United States of Europe. But that would never have happened if the UK had remained, nor would a potential loss of veto or mandatory adoption of the Euro. For Federalists Brexit was a godsend.
You can not say this for certain.
Nothing is certain and you cannot predict the future but you can use the past to understand and get a good feel for how the future might pan out.
The UK were robustly anti federalisation and would certainly have argued against a USE and mandated use of the Euro.
I dont perosnally think the uk being in there would have made a difference. We were in there for 25 years and out governments continued to do what the uk public did not want.
Which was part of the problem. Not acting on their electorates behalf but their self interest.
From what I can see mathematically the uk having meps in that vote wouldn't have made a difference to the voter turnout.
But that ignores influence and veto. If USE was inevitable (I don’t think it was), the UK would never have been part of it."
Meps dpnt have a veto.
I am talking about this specific vote.
The e.u legislature has already tried addressing the veto ability on points of matter in this voting to change the legislation |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ip2Man 24 weeks ago
Near Maidenhead |
"If the EU wants to make such radical changes, every member state should have a referendum to decide if they want to continue being part of it."
It's the national leaders who sign the treaties that set down what is to be covered and how it is to work.
Their national parliaments have to agree too.
In Ireland, the necessary change to Ireland's constitution has to have a referendum - after it's been signed by Ireland's leader and by its national parliament.
Mm. Before they have a referendum, will each member country decide what they want instead?
Or will they do a Disunited Kingdom and have a poll between either "Stay In" or "Something Else"?
Will they throw themselves into years of chaos, mess around their neighbours, put a customs border across their own territory, upset many of the people from their neighbouring countries, ruin things for their own citizens in other countries, handicap themselves with masses of bureaucracy, smash the value of their currency, wreck their diplomatic reputation and end up losing almost everything? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
It's the national leaders who sign the treaties that set down what is to be covered and how it is to work.
Their national parliaments have to agree too.
"
The national leaders were elected without having such a big change being discussed during elections.
"
Or will they do a Disunited Kingdom and have a poll between either "Stay In" or "Something Else"?
Will they throw themselves into years of chaos, mess around their neighbours, put a customs border across their own territory, upset many of the people from their neighbouring countries, ruin things for their own citizens in other countries, handicap themselves with masses of bureaucracy, smash the value of their currency, wreck their diplomatic reputation and end up losing almost everything?"
You make it sound like the UK is a doomed country when it's clearly not. Anything is better than giving up a country's sovereignty to some patronising power obsessed bureaucrats. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ip2Man 24 weeks ago
Near Maidenhead |
Powers are transferred, not given up.
Only some powers, that are about the things that are cross-border anyway.
What's good about having inconsistent rules and extra costs on either side of a border?
A delay on one side is a delay on both.
The European Commission provides a service.
The Commission makes some decisions that it's asked to make but they're not final. The EU's lower and upper court can overrule the Commission.
The Commission makes proposals for EU law but only within what the national parliaments have decided to allow.
The Commission can't pass EU law. Only government ministers, and often also the European Parliament, does that.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Powers are transferred, not given up.
"
It cannot be transferred without consent.
"
Only some powers, that are about the things that are cross-border anyway.
"
When it started the EU didn't have this much jurisdiction. They clearly want more powers
"
What's good about having inconsistent rules and extra costs on either side of a border?
"
Because different countries have different values and they all prefer a different type of governance. That's why sovereignty is important. If the EU thinks those pesky Eastern Europeans do not know anything about governance and so they should force their will, it's basically colonisation.
A
"
The Commission makes some decisions that it's asked to make but they're not final. The EU's lower and upper court can overrule the Commission.
"
Political bodies within countries are slow as fuck as they are. Why add more bureaucratic nonsense to it?
"
The Commission makes proposals for EU law but only within what the national parliaments have decided to allow.
The Commission can't pass EU law. Only government ministers, and often also the European Parliament, does that.
"
- The main proposed changes include abandoning the unanimity principle in votes in the EU Council in 65 areas and transferring competencies from the member states to the EU level, including the creation of two new exclusive EU competencies in the areas of environmental protection and biodiversity (Article 3 TFEU) and a significant expansion of shared competencies (Article 4), which would cover seven new areas: foreign and security policy, border protection, public health, civil defense, industry, and education.
The changes are in the council. And the above is basically a power grab money. Why the hell should education be under the control of EU? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Regardless of what would have happened if the UK was still a member and looking forward, do people think this will help or hinder those that want the UK to rd join? I think hinder at present as even on here if someone mentioned something that may have happened in the EU that people here were not keen on, the answer was often 'the UK has a veto so nothing bad can happen'. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ip2Man 24 weeks ago
Near Maidenhead |
As the UK has been finding out, if you're not in the EU (or at least, in the single market and in the customs union) then you have *more* bureaucracy.
For instance, take the famous VAT on tampons example.
Not being in the EU means that the UK has been able to zero rate VAT on tampons overnight.
It was going to be done inside of the EU but it had to be negotiated.
On the other hand, not being in the EU means that buyers of GB goods in Belgium may have to register for UK VAT.
So some buyers in EU countries have given up on GB because there's too much bureaucracy. The sales have been lost and everyone is worse off.
When the EEC started there wasn't the same police and courts cooperation. Or a shared sanctions policy like the ban on the members of the government of Belarus. I don't feel that is very controversial.
Education to be a shared competence? That means to decide it partly at the EU level.
An exclusive competence means to decide it only at the EU level like setting the fish quotas.
Maybe it would be a good idea. When I was at school there was a poster on the wall of the geography teacher's desk making fun of the lorries taking papers between Brussels and Strasbourg.
I wasn't taught *anything* about the then EEC and Euratom in school.
I wasn't taught when and how it started. What its institutions were. How its voting system worked. What it did and didn't do. How big its budget was.
But in Richmond in London after the referendum I met a young man who said his school had taught him some of this.
Different values? What kind of values? Which countries agree with Hamas and believe that women shouldn't be treated equally? Who thinks, like Hamas, that a woman's word in court should count for half of a man's?
As for general elections. Several people have complained to me there wasn't much time before general elections to ask, what's the overall direction of the European project?
I think that's just like, what's the future? Well if we like it then we can sign up. If we don't then we won't sign and it shan't apply to us.
Every party has put their attitude towards the rest of Europe in their manifestos.
The time before general elections was often taken up with talking about jobs and benefits and housing and so on.
More recently, the 2012 to 2014 Balance of Competences Review asked businesses, what do think of being in the EU? For the most part they said it's fine. They sometimes pointed out some odd quirks, like UK produce sometimes got labelled as EU produce abroad.
After the elections, Parliament has spent so much time talking about all sorts of things and yet rarely has someone said, "oh, we'd better make sure that's okay with Brussels". |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"As the UK has been finding out, if you're not in the EU (or at least, in the single market and in the customs union) then you have *more* bureaucracy.
"
And we rolled out vaccines faster than them. The bureaucracy while trading is something that will get more efficient over time. But bureaucracy in decision making among politicians never gets any better
"
When the EEC started there wasn't the same police and courts cooperation. Or a shared sanctions policy like the ban on the members of the government of Belarus. I don't feel that is very controversial.
"
I don't think anyone cares about what you feel as controversial. These are decisions which are better off made at country level. It's none of EU's business.
"
I wasn't taught *anything* about the then EEC and Euratom in school.
I wasn't taught when and how it started. What its institutions were. How its voting system worked. What it did and didn't do. How big its budget was.
"
Why should everyone learn about it? Maybe that country has more important stuff they want to teach to their people and don't have time to teach the stuff EU asks them to? Again, blatant patronisation.
"
Different values? What kind of values? Which countries agree with Hamas and believe that women shouldn't be treated equally? Who thinks, like Hamas, that a woman's word in court should count for half of a man's?
"
Ok this is sheer arrogance. You are acting like you have some superior set of values which have to be de facto agreed by other countries. That's basically colonial mindset. It's easy to make this argument with some silly examples like you said. You need to think about some values which conflict within EU countries - Like gun rights, freedom of speech, immigration, etc.
"
Every party has put their attitude towards the rest of Europe in their manifestos.
"
That's based on the older way of how the EU did things. If the EU is going to take more powers, people have to be given another chance.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"As the UK has been finding out, if you're not in the EU (or at least, in the single market and in the customs union) then you have *more* bureaucracy.
For instance, take the famous VAT on tampons example.
Not being in the EU means that the UK has been able to zero rate VAT on tampons overnight.
It was going to be done inside of the EU but it had to be negotiated.
On the other hand, not being in the EU means that buyers of GB goods in Belgium may have to register for UK VAT.
So some buyers in EU countries have given up on GB because there's too much bureaucracy. The sales have been lost and everyone is worse off.
When the EEC started there wasn't the same police and courts cooperation. Or a shared sanctions policy like the ban on the members of the government of Belarus. I don't feel that is very controversial.
Education to be a shared competence? That means to decide it partly at the EU level.
An exclusive competence means to decide it only at the EU level like setting the fish quotas.
Maybe it would be a good idea. When I was at school there was a poster on the wall of the geography teacher's desk making fun of the lorries taking papers between Brussels and Strasbourg.
I wasn't taught *anything* about the then EEC and Euratom in school.
I wasn't taught when and how it started. What its institutions were. How its voting system worked. What it did and didn't do. How big its budget was.
But in Richmond in London after the referendum I met a young man who said his school had taught him some of this.
Different values? What kind of values? Which countries agree with Hamas and believe that women shouldn't be treated equally? Who thinks, like Hamas, that a woman's word in court should count for half of a man's?
As for general elections. Several people have complained to me there wasn't much time before general elections to ask, what's the overall direction of the European project?
I think that's just like, what's the future? Well if we like it then we can sign up. If we don't then we won't sign and it shan't apply to us.
Every party has put their attitude towards the rest of Europe in their manifestos.
The time before general elections was often taken up with talking about jobs and benefits and housing and so on.
More recently, the 2012 to 2014 Balance of Competences Review asked businesses, what do think of being in the EU? For the most part they said it's fine. They sometimes pointed out some odd quirks, like UK produce sometimes got labelled as EU produce abroad.
After the elections, Parliament has spent so much time talking about all sorts of things and yet rarely has someone said, "oh, we'd better make sure that's okay with Brussels"."
As the UK has been finding out, if you're not in the EU (or at least, in the single market and in the customs union) then you have *more* bureaucracy.
For instance, take the famous VAT on tampons example.
Not being in the EU means that the UK has been able to zero rate VAT on tampons overnight.
It was going to be done inside of the EU but it had to be negotiated.
On the other hand, not being in the EU means that buyers of GB goods in Belgium may have to register for UK VAT.
Please explain. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Maybe it would be a good idea. When I was at school there was a poster on the wall of the geography teacher's desk making fun of the lorries taking papers between Brussels and Strasbourg.
They still do this. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Can you point out where this quote is please I the 2012 one?
"More recently, the 2012 to 2014 Balance of Competences Review asked businesses, what do think of being in the EU? For the most part they said it's fine. " |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ip2Man 24 weeks ago
Near Maidenhead |
"So some buyers in EU countries have given up on GB because there's too much bureaucracy.
Have you got specific examples?"
Yes, I know a couple who make hand made pottery near West London and that's what they told me.
I met a man who runs a computer business in Frankfurt. He used to buy from GB but not anymore because of the bureaucracy. "It's a shame, really", he said. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ip2Man 24 weeks ago
Near Maidenhead |
Yes, there's two European Parliament buildings. In the European Parliament in Brussels someone told me, "Every time we go to Strasbourg we say oh why are we doing this but then we all do it anyway".
Admin is only 6% of the EU budget and having two Parliaments is only a part of that, still, quite a bit of money.
The most expensive Parliament in Europe is of course the UK's. All that ermine doesn't come cheap.
Now who's going to mention the EU's accounts?
The accounts have always been audited and always been signed off in the end after the faults were found and put right.
Since 2007 the EU accounts have been better first time every year. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I think one of the most important reasons that easily gets forgotten in the minutiae of other details, is quite simple. "Oversight."
.
Do you really want your government, regardless of political leaning, to have full sovereignty over you, a national citizen ?
.
I absolutely do not. Not in any shape or form.
.
I want a party/organisation ABOVE THEM, who can hold them to account. Voting every 4/5 years gets bogged down in partisan politics.
.
Having an overseeing body who can wade in and say "Actually, that's not cool" is critical I feel.
.
We needs more checks and balances, not less. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *coptoCouple 24 weeks ago
Côte d'Azur & Great Yarmouth |
"there's two European Parliament buildings. In the European Parliament in Brussels someone told me, 'Every time we go to Strasbourg we say oh why are we doing this but then we all do it anyway'"
When the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC), European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom) and the European Economic Community (EEC) were merged, a single Secretariat - to organise plenary sessions and meetings, manage translation and interpretation requirements, legal department, recruitment, everything administrative in fact - was set up in Luxembourg. The importance of Strasbourg is its significance as being in a region fought over so many times by France and Germany, and it was symbolic that MEPs held their debates and voted in Parliament’s “seat” in Strasbourg.
At this time, the European Parliament had the power of “a pea-shooter or the Atom Bomb” - it was required to give an “opinion” on Commission proposals, but the Council was not obliged to take any notice of it and simply did whatever they wanted. Or they could sack the Commission (in 1999 the Jacques Santer Commission resigned rather than face being thrown out).
But as the EP gained more power and influence its Committee meetings needed to be near the Commission offices in Brussels so that MEPs could summon the very people who were drafting rules and legislation to explain the reasoning behind them. Committee members report back to their respective political parties and, of course, their respective countries, amendments are made and the whole shaboodle voted in Strasbourg.
All quite logical when you think about it, and even the expensive “travelling circus” of staff based in Luxembourg but going to Strasbourg for five days every month and Brussels for two or three days at a time is LESS expensive than having staff duplicated or triplicated in each place. As for the MEPs themselves, it makes no difference for, say, a Portuguese MEP whether he has to fly to Strasbourg or Brussels. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I think one of the most important reasons that easily gets forgotten in the minutiae of other details, is quite simple. "Oversight."
.
Do you really want your government, regardless of political leaning, to have full sovereignty over you, a national citizen ?
.
I absolutely do not. Not in any shape or form.
.
I want a party/organisation ABOVE THEM, who can hold them to account. Voting every 4/5 years gets bogged down in partisan politics.
.
Having an overseeing body who can wade in and say "Actually, that's not cool" is critical I feel.
.
We needs more checks and balances, not less."
What if this overseeing body as you describe it, is also political? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I think one of the most important reasons that easily gets forgotten in the minutiae of other details, is quite simple. "Oversight."
.
Do you really want your government, regardless of political leaning, to have full sovereignty over you, a national citizen ?
.
I absolutely do not. Not in any shape or form.
.
I want a party/organisation ABOVE THEM, who can hold them to account. Voting every 4/5 years gets bogged down in partisan politics.
.
Having an overseeing body who can wade in and say "Actually, that's not cool" is critical I feel.
.
We needs more checks and balances, not less."
It's not really an "oversight" body now, is it? They want more and more control over the member states and they aren't even being secretive about it anymore.
I don't see this as checks and balances. I see this as power grab. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"So some buyers in EU countries have given up on GB because there's too much bureaucracy.
Have you got specific examples?
Yes, I know a couple who make hand made pottery near West London and that's what they told me.
I met a man who runs a computer business in Frankfurt. He used to buy from GB but not anymore because of the bureaucracy. "It's a shame, really", he said."
Can you give a specific example something we can actually see a story of or the exports of. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"making fun of the lorries taking papers between Brussels and Strasbourg.
They still do this.
Well not very much anymore because it's mostly done on iPads now."
It is my understanding the lorries still travel even without the papwrwork.
At a cost of 114m a year as of 2019
If thisnis no longer the case. Please show evidence. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ip2Man 24 weeks ago
Near Maidenhead |
"Can you give a specific example something we can actually see a story of or the exports of."
Hundreds of examples here.
https://yorkshirebylines.co.uk/regular-features/the-davis-downside-dossier/ |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
