Vocal Voices

Of what the voting for the EU parliament was about and how people around the wold see it.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/05/2 ... 6720140525

In short, my analysis is LUDICROUS.

In fact for anyone to say that a political appointee is More Democratic, than an elected representative; has no idea what democracy is at all.

But then, that's the EU for you. They've had this little playground to themselves for far too long and are not willing to let it go.

Do we really want to be part of that? Given that we have less influence then Holland with the second largest economy and population!

Suff wrote:Do we really want to be part of that?

No.

I post on another board which is full of left wingers with very pc views. I asked them what was it about the EU that inspired them, what made it worth while?

I didn't get many answers. "It's too late to get out", was one. Which I wouldn't say was inspiring.
"You don't have to change money when you move countries". True, but scarcely earth shattering, and "You can go and work in Europe more easily". Truest one yet; but it comes at the expense of Europeans being able to come here very easily too, and that has come at a cost.

It is obvious that the EU election process is different from almost everywhere else. We do not have a political duopoly as is the case in the USA and, thankfully, we do not have pan-European political parties.

What we do have to work with is a melange of flavours of different political philosophies. That means that when the 500million or so of us have voted for the 751 member "Parliament" there is no political party, and not even a political bloc, capable of forming a "Government" to run the EU.

The solution to that problem is the Commission, a body made up representative of all the member states. These members are appointed by National governments, and usually on party lines of the party in power.

It might not be perfect, but what are the alternatives? Answers, in a very detailed document, with solutions to suit all member states equally.

Workingman wrote:
It might not be perfect, but what are the alternatives? Answers, in a very detailed document,
with solutions to suit all member states equally.

You must be joking

Don`t you just love African democracy eg Malawi where the "President" aka dictator does not like the election results so he declares it null and void.

Aggers wrote:You must be joking

Not really John. It is a perfectly reasonable request.

All I ever seem to hear about this is that it is not democratic and it is not British; and, as we all know, British is best: isn't it? So, let us look at the British way.

In Britain we turn up to vote and we pick our representative from a list - a person to represent us. Yet we do not do that in reality, in reality we pick a representative on party lines. In most cases the individual is neither here nor there. In some places a party could put up a befuddled duck and it would get voted in.

So, do all these MPs go down to Westminster and throw their names in the hat to become PM? No! That issue has already been decided. The leader of the party with a clear majority of seats becomes PM, unless there is a coalition, and then some horse trading gets done; then the leader of the party with a clear majority of seats becomes PM.

Maybe the MPs from the majority party now throw their names in the hat to become Chancellor or Home/Foreign/ Defence Minister? No, again! They will be appointed by the PM. That select few appointees will then become our Government and we have no choice in the matter; we also have no way of voting individual Ministers 'in' or 'out' - that is for the PM to decide. Ministers do not even have to be MPs. The PM can draft members in from the (unelected) Lords.

Most MPs in the party of government are not the Government, and, because of the Whip system, they are not really there to represent us either, they are there to support the Government.

It's all very British and so very democratic....... right up to the hereditary and unelected Head of State.

At least it is not Malawi, yet.

WM, this is not quite the same.

What is happening here is similar to what Blair did with ministerial appointments for non elected people. So we had people who had never been elected by the people making government policy. OK they didn't have a vote, but then what does that matter in the long run?

What is worse is that unelected people, appointed by our government, sit on the council too. They get to vote on legislation made by unelected appointees in the commission.

It was wrong when Blair did it, but right when the EU do it? This is not hard to work out and it's not hard to make a case that all members of all legislative bodies for the EU are elected. Anything else is undemocratic. No matter whether they are appointed by our elected representatives or not, they are not elected by the populace and our elected governments are NOT elected on who they will appoint to the EU council and commission. Although perhaps they should be.

I hate this dual standard stuff. The press want to whinge about it for Blair, then they damned well whinge about it for the EU. Or just shut up. After all, 90% of the damaging legislation in the UK today comes from the Commission, as directives, approved by the council. Our "elected representatives" don't get a vote unless the "appointed" seat fillers can't make their minds up.

Democracy? I don't think so.

So here is the incredibly detailed solution.

Every Institution in the EU should only have members elected by the electorate. Except for the courts. On which I'll accept that electing judges is not a thing for the uneducated.

This is so difficult?

For the EU, apparently. Hence the inability to make a constitution in less than ~460 pages. Or get their accounts signed off by the auditors.

In a democracy there is only one true check and balance. Accountability. Hence the EU is not a democracy, elections or no elections. It's like Saddam. He always got 95% of the vote. Never mind that voting was compulsory and you could only vote for one candidate, Saddam.....

The parallels are not flattering. Nor the parallels with the USSR. You could vote, but only for the party and there was only one of those. The leaders were the leaders and nobody got a vote on them and they only changed when the other leaders wanted it. One party system. There were factions, of course. Just as there are in the EU Parliament. But in the end, it's just "the party" and we get what we're given, not what we choose.

Early exit polls from France suggest that Marine Le Pen's front Nationale is in the lead in all regions bar one.
Is it the state of the French economy that is making people vote for her?

Sangatte the third is just being bulldozed, Romanian gypsies are pillaging the land, Romanians are running begging and prostitution rings, uncontrolled immigration and an economy which is, to put it bluntly, tottering on the brink. A political elite completely disconnected from the person in the street.

Hollande, in under two years, has managed to make himself the most hated president in France to date, has failed with all his "spend our way to prosperity" and is looking at being penalised by the EU for breeching the 3% fiscal barrier in 2015 after the extension expires.

People are not happy. They see the EU as encroaching into their space and they don't feel in control of "France".

Sound familiar???