5 ms·

> It had one commissioner And when did the people of the UK have a chance to vote him in? I must have missed that election. > and 10% of the seats in parliame

by maratd 10y ago

> It had one commissioner And when did the people of the UK have a chance to vote him in? I must have missed that election. > and 10% of the seats in parliament (second only in representation to Germany) I must have missed this election as well! > If you do not like to be called out for that strawman argument, please inform yourself or be more articulate next time. I was quite articulate, thank you. The problem really is that when people such as yourself are incapable of making a coherent argument in turn, they resort to passive/aggressive nonsense like you're displaying here. > Ironically, the situation "zero control, with tax obligations" (i.e. the Norway solution) is now the most likely option for the UK. Care to expand on this?

adwf 10y ago
The commissioner is appointed by the PM, so you vote for him every general election. The idea that the EU is undemocratic is absurd. It's doubly absurd considering we still have a House of Lords... The reason people feel they don't have a say in the EU is because they keep voting for UKIP, whose entire mandate was to make the EU look bad by racking up expenses and not doing anything. The gall of Farage when he was campaigning for the fishermen during the referendum was astounding. He attended 1, ONE, out of 42 fisheries council meetings while he was an MEP and he was on the committee. Then he turns around and says that it was the EU that screwed our fishing industry. No, he betrayed the fishing industry just to make the EU look bad.
arrrg 10y ago
Do the people vote for ministers in member states? Commissioners are appointed and they are appointed because the governments they appoint them are so horny for power, they want to exactly pick the person they want. I want Commisiooners that are appointed by a president that is elected by the parliament (that's just how the German government works) or a similar system, but such a system would take too much power away from the governments of the member states (and give too much power to democratically elected EU institutions like the parliament) and as such was, while discussed, always disliked by members like the UK. The EU is structured the way it is because the (elected) member state governments want to preserve their power and influence. They don't want some other democratically elected EU institution taking away their power. Commissioners are basically member state government surrogates. And this doesn't even yet touch upon the fact that hardly anything in the EU gets done without member states' governments direct involvement, either the Head's or the ministers (all democratically legitimated, by the way). You are lacking a very basic level of understanding of how the EU works and why it is structured the way it is. Member state governments typically actually have a problem with democratically electing more people in the EU. They would much rather just send someone they appoint or go themselves (for obvious reasons). You are calling for something the UK has always blocked. Also, you don't seem to know that there is an European Parliament? Democratically elected? Seats assigned proportionally? The last election was in 2014. Norway: they are not a member of the EU but a part of the common market. That gives them the option to opt out of some things (but not even most things and especially not central ones like freedom of movement of labour), but they still have to pay membership fees and get no say when the rules are decided on.
- maratd 10y ago
  > You are lacking a very basic level of understanding of how the EU works and why it is structured the way it is. Thank you for educating me. > You are calling for something the UK has always blocked. I think you're confusing the populace at large with their representatives. That is exactly the distinction I was trying to make. You can have a desire to not be a part of an institution that was designed by the very representatives you elected. > Also, you don't seem to know that there is an European Parliament? Based on my reading of the subject, they can't introduce legislation? Merely vote on it? And if they approve, another body which is not elected, must also approve before legislation is enacted?
tremon 10y ago
And when did the people of the UK have a chance to vote him in? You didn't. You voted for Cameron, and he nominated Lord Hill. I suggest you take it up with Westminster if you wanted to vote directly: http://www.politico.eu/article/jonathan-hill-to-be-uks-commissioner/ http://www.politico.eu/article/jonathan-hill-to-be-uks-commi... I must have missed this election as well! http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-27039093 http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-27039093 resort to passive/aggressive nonsense like you're displaying here. Aww. You were still wrong though, and were attacking the first commenter that pointed this out to you. Care to expand on this? If the UK wants to keep access to the EU single market (the EEA, European Economic Area), it can still do so through membership of the EFTA (European Free Trade Area). Membership of the EFTA requires a membership fee, likely less than the EU "tax". But it also means that the UK is no longer in a position to influence EU product regulations directly. The first links I could find, they look quite comprehensive but I can't really judge their contents: http://euquestion.blogspot.com/2016/04/the-cost-of-eu-membership-versus-efta.html http://euquestion.blogspot.com/2016/04/the-cost-of-eu-member... https://medium.com/@WhiteWednesday/the-norway-option-some-bookmarks-e51e7621beb2 https://medium.com/@WhiteWednesday/the-norway-option-some-bo... The primary problem for the UK is that free movement of people is a nonconditional part of the single market treaty, which seems to be the very idea that was the focal point of the leave campaign. So it's not a certainty that this deal will fly in the UK. Switzerland, for example, does not partake in the EEA but still has to abide by the Free Movement clause: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switzerland%E2%80%93European_Union_relations#The_2014_referendum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switzerland%E2%80%93European_U...

by maratd 10y ago

adwf 10y ago

The commissioner is appointed by the PM, so you vote for him every general election. The idea that the EU is undemocratic is absurd. It's doubly absurd considering we still have a House of Lords... The reason people feel they don't have a say in the EU is because they keep voting for UKIP, whose entire mandate was to make the EU look bad by racking up expenses and not doing anything. The gall of Farage when he was campaigning for the fishermen during the referendum was astounding. He attended 1, ONE, out of 42 fisheries council meetings while he was an MEP and he was on the committee. Then he turns around and says that it was the EU that screwed our fishing industry. No, he betrayed the fishing industry just to make the EU look bad.

arrrg 10y ago

Do the people vote for ministers in member states? Commissioners are appointed and they are appointed because the governments they appoint them are so horny for power, they want to exactly pick the person they want. I want Commisiooners that are appointed by a president that is elected by the parliament (that's just how the German government works) or a similar system, but such a system would take too much power away from the governments of the member states (and give too much power to democratically elected EU institutions like the parliament) and as such was, while discussed, always disliked by members like the UK. The EU is structured the way it is because the (elected) member state governments want to preserve their power and influence. They don't want some other democratically elected EU institution taking away their power. Commissioners are basically member state government surrogates. And this doesn't even yet touch upon the fact that hardly anything in the EU gets done without member states' governments direct involvement, either the Head's or the ministers (all democratically legitimated, by the way). You are lacking a very basic level of understanding of how the EU works and why it is structured the way it is. Member state governments typically actually have a problem with democratically electing more people in the EU. They would much rather just send someone they appoint or go themselves (for obvious reasons). You are calling for something the UK has always blocked. Also, you don't seem to know that there is an European Parliament? Democratically elected? Seats assigned proportionally? The last election was in 2014. Norway: they are not a member of the EU but a part of the common market. That gives them the option to opt out of some things (but not even most things and especially not central ones like freedom of movement of labour), but they still have to pay membership fees and get no say when the rules are decided on.

maratd 10y ago
> You are lacking a very basic level of understanding of how the EU works and why it is structured the way it is. Thank you for educating me. > You are calling for something the UK has always blocked. I think you're confusing the populace at large with their representatives. That is exactly the distinction I was trying to make. You can have a desire to not be a part of an institution that was designed by the very representatives you elected. > Also, you don't seem to know that there is an European Parliament? Based on my reading of the subject, they can't introduce legislation? Merely vote on it? And if they approve, another body which is not elected, must also approve before legislation is enacted?

tremon 10y ago

And when did the people of the UK have a chance to vote him in? You didn't. You voted for Cameron, and he nominated Lord Hill. I suggest you take it up with Westminster if you wanted to vote directly: http://www.politico.eu/article/jonathan-hill-to-be-uks-commissioner/ http://www.politico.eu/article/jonathan-hill-to-be-uks-commi... I must have missed this election as well! http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-27039093 http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-27039093 resort to passive/aggressive nonsense like you're displaying here. Aww. You were still wrong though, and were attacking the first commenter that pointed this out to you. Care to expand on this? If the UK wants to keep access to the EU single market (the EEA, European Economic Area), it can still do so through membership of the EFTA (European Free Trade Area). Membership of the EFTA requires a membership fee, likely less than the EU "tax". But it also means that the UK is no longer in a position to influence EU product regulations directly. The first links I could find, they look quite comprehensive but I can't really judge their contents: http://euquestion.blogspot.com/2016/04/the-cost-of-eu-membership-versus-efta.html http://euquestion.blogspot.com/2016/04/the-cost-of-eu-member... https://medium.com/@WhiteWednesday/the-norway-option-some-bookmarks-e51e7621beb2 https://medium.com/@WhiteWednesday/the-norway-option-some-bo... The primary problem for the UK is that free movement of people is a nonconditional part of the single market treaty, which seems to be the very idea that was the focal point of the leave campaign. So it's not a certainty that this deal will fly in the UK. Switzerland, for example, does not partake in the EEA but still has to abide by the Free Movement clause: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switzerland%E2%80%93European_Union_relations#The_2014_referendum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switzerland%E2%80%93European_U...