Pro-Lisbon Treaty group launched

Run_to_da_hills

I started this topic in AH but it was suggested that this was the correct forum for it.

Reading the RTE news it looks like we will be bombarded with Pro Lisbon propaganda for the next 5 months leading up to Lisbon 2.

Now with Ganley completly out of the political picture it looks like it is all going to be one sided from now on.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0621/eulisbon.html

Euro_Kraut

In what sense is the EU 'backing' this? Please provide a link to support your claim.

nesf

Thread title edited to something more accurate.

Run_to_da_hills

Euro_Kraut wrote: »

In what sense is the EU 'backing' this? Please provide a link to support your claim.

We will know by the quality and quantity of the bill board posters.

Dinner

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

We will know by the quality and quantity of the bill board posters.

Ah, so you don't actually have anything to back up a sensationalist thread title. Why am I not surprised.

Also, taken from his AH thread.

Anyone that is seen resisting the Pro Lisbon lobby group could possibly be treated as dissidents and be harassed by the authorities.

It might even become illegal to speak out against the Lisbon treaty.

...

Euro_Kraut

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

We will know by the quality and quantity of the bill board posters.

Haven't seen many out so far - so you don't know. Didn't stop you posting as 'fact' it in two forums.

Anyways thread title is amended now. Personally I an glad to see a Yes campaign led by non-politicians. The issue supersedes all party politics.

MikeC101

Anyone that is seen resisting the Pro Lisbon lobby group could possibly be treated as dissidents and be harassed by the authorities.

It might even become illegal to speak out against the Lisbon treaty.

Anyone seen as opposing the Anti Lisbon lobby group might possibly be abducted and tortured by mutated Libertas controlled chimps, maybe.

It could maybe even become illegal to wear pants that aren't the same colour as the paper the treaty is printed on, perhaps.

It's about as valid an argument really.

Seriously, the level of hysteria in that post is just amazing.

Iwasfrozen

It's nice to see another pro lisbon group, things are looking good for the referendum.

brianthebard

Euro_Kraut wrote: »

Haven't seen many out so far - so you don't know. Didn't stop you posting as 'fact' it in two forums.

Anyways thread title is amended now. Personally I an glad to see a Yes campaign led by non-politicians. The issue supersedes all party politics.

Is Pat Cox not a politician?

I guess we shouldn't be surprised that such a group has been set up, I wonder who will take up the slack left by Libertas on the No side? I didn't like the organisation, but there is a need for some opposition.

Iwasfrozen

I guess we shouldn't be surprised that such a group has been set up, I wonder who will take up the slack left by Libertas on the No side? I didn't like the organisation, but there is a need for some opposition.

Hopefully no-one we don''t need any real opposition to the treaty.
It will be nice to see an RTE debate with members of Choir and the People before Profit Alliance sitting together on the No side.
Maybe then people will see just how looney the No side is.

PopeBuckfastXVI

brianthebard wrote: »

Is Pat Cox not a politician?

I guess we shouldn't be surprised that such a group has been set up, I wonder who will take up the slack left by Libertas on the No side? I didn't like the organisation, but there is a need for some opposition.

Coir have more than enough lies to go round...

Euro_Kraut

brianthebard wrote: »

Is Pat Cox not a politician?

True, he used to be. Former President of the European Parliament. I would have preferred a complete outsider from the political system to head it up.

Having said that he will know the treaty inside out.

nesf

brianthebard wrote: »

I guess we shouldn't be surprised that such a group has been set up, I wonder who will take up the slack left by Libertas on the No side? I didn't like the organisation, but there is a need for some opposition.

I'd welcome any opposition who fight the campaign on the facts not on fearmongering lies. I won't hold my breath waiting for that to happen though.

brianthebard

nesf wrote: »

I'd welcome any opposition who fight the campaign on the facts not on fearmongering lies. I won't hold my breath waiting for that to happen though.

I would hope the Yes campaign sticks to the same standards.

nesf

brianthebard wrote: »

I would hope the Yes campaign sticks to the same standards.

Indeed. However, as with the last referendum, many Yes minded posters on here will point out such lies by the Yes campaign if they happen.

P. Breathnach

brianthebard wrote: »

... I wonder who will take up the slack left by Libertas on the No side? I didn't like the organisation, but there is a need for some opposition.

No, there is no unqualified need for opposition. Thee is a need for critical scrutiny of what is proposed and if what is proposed has significant flaws, then there is need for opposition.

I am convinced that most of those who opposed Lisbon 1, and who will probably oppose Lisbon 2, do so because they are Eorosceptic (I'm giving some the benefit of the doubt; describing them as Eurosceptic is kinder than calling them wreckers). Now, it's okay to be Eurosceptic, just as it is okay for me to disagree with that position. What I particularly dislike is that they won't actually say what their position is. The standard line is "I am pro-Europe, but ..."

brianthebard

P. Breathnach wrote: »

No, there is no unqualified need for opposition. Thee is a need for critical scrutiny of what is proposed and if what is proposed has significant flaws, then there is need for opposition.

I am convinced that most of those who opposed Lisbon 1, and who will probably oppose Lisbon 2, do so because they are Eorosceptic (I'm giving some the benefit of the doubt; describing them as Eurosceptic is kinder than calling them wreckers). Now, it's okay to be Eurosceptic, just as it is okay for me to disagree with that position. What I particularly dislike is that they won't actually say what their position is. The standard line is "I am pro-Europe, but ..."

If there's no need for opposition why do you need a pro-lisbon lobby?

P. Breathnach

brianthebard wrote: »

If there's no need for opposition why do you need a pro-lisbon lobby?

Because of the unnecessary opposition provided mainly by Eurosceptics, opportunists, wreckers, and religious bigots, along with opposition provided by a few honest people who I think have made a bad judgement.

tonycascarino

brianthebard wrote: »

If there's no need for opposition why do you need a pro-lisbon lobby?

Now to the best of my knowledge isn't Dave Evans (The Edge) a tax exile and Robbie Keane employed by a foreign plc to play association football in another country. None of them pay tax here or contribute to society here except for the sales of their products and the taxes garnered from sale of same items. And we used to criticise Declan Ganley? You couldn't make it up. Bad move by the Pro-Lisbon side if you ask me.

netron

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Because of the unnecessary opposition provided mainly by Eurosceptics, opportunists, wreckers, and religious bigots, along with opposition provided by a few honest people who I think have made a bad judgement.

bad judgement?

I want a democratic and fully accountable European Union - Lisbon does not provide that. I voted No.

And I will vote No again because of that.

President of the European Union
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_European_Council

Unelected.


President of the European Commission
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_European_Commission

Unelected

The European Commission
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Commission

The executive branch of the European Union.

Unelected.


European Foreign Minister
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Representative_of_the_Union_for_Foreign_Affairs_and_Security_Policy

Unelected



Thats enough powerful people who are "unelected" for my liking.
I will be voting No again until these people finally get the message.

P. Breathnach

netron wrote: »

bad judgement?

I want a democratic and fully accountable European Union - Lisbon does not provide that. I voted No.

Thats enough powerful people who are "unelected" for my liking. I will be voting No again until these people finally get the message.

We don't elect our Taoiseach or our Ministers (or our dog wardens).

I think yours is a bad judgement.

Iwasfrozen

All of the people you mentioned appointed by europes elected politicians, if people didn't trust their politicians they wouldn't have elected them in the first place.
Would you rather we held pan-european elections ? That would require a constitution, something I believe the Irish rejected in 2004.

netron

P. Breathnach wrote: »

We don't elect our Taoiseach or our Ministers (or our dog wardens).

I think yours is a bad judgement.

Dont be such an eejit. I know how it works.
the Taoiseach is a TD who is elected. He can lose his seat in an election.


Who voted for Peter Mandelson to be EU Trade Comissioner? Could Mr Mandelson lose his role because of a public vote? No , of course not.

netron

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

All of the people you mentioned appointed by europes elected politicians, if people didn't trust their politicians they wouldn't have elected them in the first place.
Would you rather we held pan-european elections ? That would require a constitution, something I believe the Irish rejected in 2004.

Yes i would have pan european elections.

And the Irish did not reject the consitution. That failed in France and Holland and the vote was postponed

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:EU_Constitution_Ratification_Map.svg


We rejected Lisbon.

Mario007

netron wrote: »

Dont be such an eejit. I know how it works.
the Taoiseach is a TD who is elected. He can lose his seat in an election.


Who voted for Peter Mandelson to be EU Trade Comissioner? Could Mr Mandelson lose his role because of a public vote? No , of course not.

first of all stop being abusive, there are tons of swear words i could throw on you for your opinions but i'm trying my best not to do so, so please do the same.

taoiseach is a TD but you dont elect him as the taoiseach! would you rather that we get an eu commissioner out the MEP we sent to brussels?

in other eu countries, for example, the prime minister doesnt have to be an MP, to be honest it's better that way, and if he is an MP then he looses his MP seat so he can concentrate solemmly on the issues he faces in the office. the same goes for the ministers...you cant just force the irish way of life onto the rest of the europe...just cos you like it...

Mario007

netron wrote: »

Yes i would have pan european elections.

And the Irish did not reject the consitution. That failed in France and Holland and the vote was postponed

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:EU_Constitution_Ratification_Map.svg


We rejected Lisbon.

i love your wikipedia links...they're very legitimate and show a lot of credibility for a website that can be altered by anybody...

oh so you want one party to win the majority in the eu(like libertas wanted) cos then that wouldnt be a dicatorship, right?

RandomName2

Mario007 wrote: »

i love your wikipedia links...they're very legitimate and show a lot of credibility for a website that can be altered by anybody...

oh so you want one party to win the majority in the eu(like libertas wanted) cos then that wouldnt be a dicatorship, right?

Is the EPP a dictatorship?

netron

Mario007 wrote: »

first of all stop being abusive, there are tons of swear words i could throw on you for your opinions but i'm trying my best not to do so, so please do the same.

taoiseach is a TD but you dont elect him as the taoiseach! would you rather that we get an eu commissioner out the MEP we sent to brussels?

in other eu countries, for example, the prime minister doesnt have to be an MP, to be honest it's better that way, and if he is an MP then he looses his MP seat so he can concentrate solemmly on the issues he faces in the office. the same goes for the ministers...you cant just force the irish way of life onto the rest of the europe...just cos you like it...

jesus.. didnt mean to be offensive - "eejit" down my way in Cork is a term of mild banter amongst friends.

apologies if it offended you. didnt mean that.

regarding the leader of a country - well in Britain , the PM doesnt have to be an MP - that is true. The majority party that is elected can select a member to be PM.

But politically, it is impossible for a non-MP to be elected as PM. Precisely because the members voting for the PM have all been elected themselves and are accountable to the electorate.

And the electorate would not stand for an unelected PM - the party that did that would probably lose the next election.

The key point here is that in democracies you have a political class that is fearful of the electorate - and acts accordingly.

And rightly so. That is entirely the correct way to act.

What the EU introduces is a political class that is INDIFFERENT to the whims of the electorate - because it is appointed by political class peers rather than by the electorate - and is thus, by definition undemocratic.

And that is what i object to.

netron

Mario007 wrote: »

i love your wikipedia links...they're very legitimate and show a lot of credibility for a website that can be altered by anybody...

oh so you want one party to win the majority in the eu(like libertas wanted) cos then that wouldnt be a dicatorship, right?

if i started using non-wikipedia links , i'd get called out for "bias" in my linkage.

which is true - it is generally recognised by all sides that Wikipedia tries to be politically neutral.

i tend to link to wikipedia, because then the links dont get argued over. its neutral territory. and i'm just saying "make your own mind up"...

netron

Mario007 wrote: »

oh so you want one party to win the majority in the eu(like libertas wanted) cos then that wouldnt be a dicatorship, right?

i dont understand how electing EU "Senators" could be linked to a party dictatorship.

we'd probably do what they do in America - vote for one party in the Senate elections , and the other party in the Parliament (House of Rep. ) elections.

Keeps the checks and balances going.

And then there's a third election in the U.S. - the President.

We should vote on that too.. ( EU President)

Mario007

RandomName2 wrote: »

Is the EPP a dictatorship?

EPP is not a majority;)

netron wrote: »

jesus.. didnt mean to be offensive - "eejit" down my way in Cork is a term of mild banter amongst friends.

apologies if it offended you. didnt mean that.

regarding the leader of a country - well in Britain , the PM doesnt have to be an MP - that is true. The majority party that is elected can select a member to be PM.

But politically, it is impossible for a non-MP to be elected as PM. Precisely because the members voting for the PM have all been elected themselves and are accountable to the electorate.

And the electorate would not stand for an unelected PM - the party that did that would probably lose the next election.

The key point here is that in democracies you have a political class that is fearful of the electorate - and acts accordingly.

And rightly so. That is entirely the correct way to act.

What the EU introduces is a political class that is INDIFFERENT to the whims of the electorate - because it is appointed by political class peers rather than by the electorate - and is thus, by definition undemocratic.

And that is what i object to.

ha weird...i live in cork as well, and it means something totally different down here

to your point in the czech republic for example they have a government full of experts in their fields and its working out amazingly great so far. the parliament is still the institution that has to pass all the laws and can make new ones and it answers to the public...so the elected peolpe actually make the decissions still....something like the eu to be honest, after the lisbon...right now the ep cant really do much to the commission

netron

Mario007 wrote: »

EPP is not a majority;)

ha weird...i live in cork as well, and it means something totally different down here

northside or southside?

might explain the difference. i'm northside.

netron

Mario007 wrote: »

to your point in the czech republic for example they have a government full of experts in their fields and its working out amazingly great so far. the parliament is still the institution that has to pass all the laws and can make new ones and it answers to the public...so the elected peolpe actually make the decissions still....something like the eu to be honest, after the lisbon...right now the ep cant really do much to the commission

and the czech republic is the most strident AGAINST lisbon.

president klaus refuses to sign off on it.


thats one lie i cant stand from the Yes camp - as if everything depends on Ireland - it doesnt - Czechs havent signed off. Germans havent either.

And afaik, the Poles havent either. We're not the only ones.

Mario007

netron wrote: »

northside or southside?

might explain the difference. i'm northside.

southside...southeast actually:D wouldnt have thought there'd be so much difference in just one county:D

netron

Mario007 wrote: »

to your point in the czech republic for example they have a government full of experts in their fields and its working out amazingly great so far. the parliament is still the institution that has to pass all the laws and can make new ones and it answers to the public...so the elected peolpe actually make the decissions still....something like the eu to be honest, after the lisbon...right now the ep cant really do much to the commission

BUT the difference is - the Czech Parliament can initiate LAW - and get the experts to comment on it and do whatnot to that law.

but its the elected Parliament that can kick off laws.

There is no such thing in the EU - only the unelected EU Commission can kick off laws.

I guess the simple explanation is - EU Commission = A King.
EU Parliament = sucking up to the King.

netron

Mario007 wrote: »

southside...southeast actually:D wouldnt have thought there'd be so much difference in just one county:D

aaaaahh..

that would explain it. "eejit" up northside is a term thats used amongst friends disagreeing - "ahh gway ya eejit - sure didnt Seamus do well in that school. yer mad to not want yer kids to go to dat school"


now if i went to "langer" level, then it would have been a bit more serious.

like.


sorry bout that. didnt mean to offend. will watch my slang in future.

Mario007

netron wrote: »

aaaaahh..

that would explain it. "eejit" up northside is a term thats used amongst friends disagreeing - "ahh gway ya eejit - sure didnt Seamus do well in that school. yer mad to not want yer kids to go to dat school"


now if i went to "langer" level, then it would have been a bit more serious.

like.


sorry bout that. didnt mean to offend. will watch my slang in future.

ha no problem...glad thats sorted out...i actually kinda overreacted too:D

netron wrote: »

and the czech republic is the most strident AGAINST lisbon.

president klaus refuses to sign off on it.


thats one lie i cant stand from the Yes camp - as if everything depends on Ireland - it doesnt - Czechs havent signed off. Germans havent either.

And afaik, the Poles havent either. We're not the only ones.

yeah but klaus is using the irish as an excuse not to sign it, he said he'd only sing it ireland said yes. poland will only sign it if czech republic signs it and germany will sign it if their supreme court doesnt find any flaws in the treaty(the report is due to be published next week, i think)

btw according to the czech constitution and one of its interpretations, the president has to sign off on an international treaty if the parliament and the senate along with the government pass it...and klaus is holding up other two international treaties too...so i wouldnt read much into that

netron wrote: »

BUT the difference is - the Czech Parliament can initiate LAW - and get the experts to comment on it and do whatnot to that law.

but its the elected Parliament that can kick off laws.

There is no such thing in the EU - only the unelected EU Commission can kick off laws.

I guess the simple explanation is - EU Commission = A King.
EU Parliament = sucking up to the King.

well the eu parliament will get more powers under lisbon so its a step forward, dont you think? under nice things would stay the same. under article 14 the ep shares its powers with the commission when it comes down to budget policy and legislative proceeding...

oscarBravo

P. Breathnach wrote: »

The standard line is "I am pro-Europe, but ..."

Or, "I'd vote for a USE, but I'm not voting for that Lisbon crap."

netron wrote: »

I want a democratic and fully accountable European Union - Lisbon does not provide that.

And Nice does?

President of the European Union
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_European_Council

Unelected.


President of the European Commission
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_European_Commission

Unelected

The European Commission
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Commission

The executive branch of the European Union.

Unelected.


European Foreign Minister
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Representative_of_the_Union_for_Foreign_Affairs_and_Security_Policy

Unelected

US Secretary of State - unelected.

US Secretary of the Treasury - unelected.

US Attorney General - unelected.

I could go on, but you get the gist. I guess America is the ultimate dictatorship, so.

Mario007

oscarBravo wrote: »

Or, "I'd vote for a USE, but I'm not voting for that Lisbon crap."

And Nice does? US Secretary of State - unelected.

US Secretary of the Treasury - unelected.

US Attorney General - unelected.

I could go on, but you get the gist. I guess America is the ultimate dictatorship, so.

brilliant way of summing it up, man. thumbs up!

RandomName2

Mario007 wrote: »

southside...southeast actually:D wouldnt have thought there'd be so much difference in just one county:D

How perjorative is 'eejit' supposed to be? In Dublin it would almost be akin to a term of affection - a bit culchie, but that's its charm

RandomName2

oscarBravo wrote: »

US Secretary of State - unelected.

US Secretary of the Treasury - unelected.

US Attorney General - unelected.

I could go on, but you get the gist. I guess America is the ultimate dictatorship, so.

As far as I know none of the above have any legislative capacity.

Mario007

RandomName2 wrote: »

As far as I know none of the above have any legislative capacity.

attorney general is a big position in the us...
the treasury makes out the budget...which yet again is greatly important
secretary of state is what would be the foreign minister of the eu, which people complain about not being directly elected.

about the legislative capacity...under lisbon it is shared between ep, ec and european council...ie you need 3 bodies to agree on a law...two of which you elect...one which is being elected by the two you've already elected...what more can you want?

turgon

netron wrote: »

President of the European Union Council
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_European_Council

Ftfu. Im glad to see we already have the uber-factually correct No-side campaign starting up.

netron wrote: »

Unelected.

Wrong, the four times you said it. These positions are elected by the European Council, and the commission is approved by parliament. Lets be clear next time: they are not elected by a popular vote.

skearon

netron wrote: »

and the czech republic is the most strident AGAINST lisbon.

president klaus refuses to sign off on it.

Wrong, their government is in favour, true their president isn't in favour of lisbon and by doing so does not represent the views of his elected government.

PopeBuckfastXVI

In my humble opinion the quality of discussion on this forum is severely retarded by the deliberate employment of emotive terms, whereby the message, if any, is lost inside the argument over terminology. Anyone posting, again in my opinion, should really decide if their point can stand alone, devoid of incendiary language, because if so, it doesn't need it.

Scofflaw

netron wrote: »

BUT the difference is - the Czech Parliament can initiate LAW - and get the experts to comment on it and do whatnot to that law.

but its the elected Parliament that can kick off laws.

There is no such thing in the EU - only the unelected EU Commission can kick off laws.

I guess the simple explanation is - EU Commission = A King.
EU Parliament = sucking up to the King.

There are two main mechanisms for achieving democratic control over an institution like the Commission. The first, and most obvious method, is to directly elect the Commissioners. The second, less direct route, is to make the Commission answerable to (ie accountable to) a democratically elected body.

The EU follows the second route - the Commission is answerable to the elected Parliament. People are often unaware of the extent of the Parliament's control over the Commission - the Parliament can reject the Commission initially (for example, in rejecting Buttiglione), can unseat the Commission through a vote of No Confidence (for example, in the mass resignation of the Santer Commission), and can also reject the Commission's proposed budgets (as in 2006). Legislatively, they have the power both to amend legislation and to reject it - rejecting, for example, the proposed software patents directive and the proposed ports directive.

Such a system is similar to the way we run local councils - the majority of what happens in councils is the result of the work of the professional expert staff and management rather than councillors, but the councillors act as a form of democratic control over the council.

It is different to the way we run parliamentary democracies - because the European Parliament does not form the government of the EU, as they would in a state. If the Parliament did directly form the government of the EU, they would be thereby superior - within the EU's competences - to the elected governments of the member states. It should be obvious that such an arrangement would make the EU a federal super-state, and is not in fact desirable. The Parliament, therefore, are part of the "government" of the EU, but are balanced against the other institutions. They exist primarily to prevent the other democratically mandated body - the Council - from running the EU without any direct reference to the citizens.

So, coming all the way round to the Commission again - the Commission is subject to both the Parliament and the Council. It can propose all the laws and budgets it likes, but it cannot pass them without the consent of at least one of the other two bodies, both of which are democratically mandated. In certain areas, the Commission does pass regulations by itself, but only where it has been delegated the power to do so by the Council, who can withdraw such permission at any time.

As to why it is preferable that the indirect option is used rather than the direct election of the Commission, there are a couple of considerations.

The main issue is that a Commissioner does not represent their country, but is instead mandated by the treaties to act in the interests of Europe as a whole. I appreciate it's de rigeur for people to say "yeah, right" to that, but the evidence is that that's exactly what they do - the strongest evidence is the voluntary relinquishment of the second Commissioner that the big countries used to have. If Commissioners did act in national interests on any regular basis, the big member states would have kept them - the original reason behind the 2 Commissioners for large states rule was that the governments didn't originally trust the Commission to operate impartially.

By contrast to an appointed Commissioner, an elected Commissioner has an electorate to keep happy. They will have been elected by a national electorate (or, rather, a part of one) to carry out a particular agenda - and that agenda will inevitably be a national (or sub-national) one. If they wish to be re-elected, they have to push through some part of the electoral program they put to the voters as a manifesto - whether it makes sense for Europe as a whole or not. That makes every Commissioner a national agent - which may seem like a good idea until you consider that we only have one vote out of 27 on the Commission.

In turn, this means that the Commissioners will constantly be proposing legislation that benefits their particular country - or the part of it that voted for them (which may be only a small fraction) - rather than considering Europe-wide solutions.

For my money, it's much better to have the Commissioners suggested by whatever means (and there's nothing in the treaties that stops us electing our Commissioner), and for them then to be subject to the Parliament. It may not look as democratic, but it is a perfectly standard way of democratically controlling a technocratic body like the Commission.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Mario007

Scofflaw wrote: »

There are two main mechanisms for achieving democratic control over an institution like the Commission. The first, and most obvious method, is to directly elect the Commissioners. The second, less direct route, is to make the Commission answerable to (ie accountable to) a democratically elected body.

The EU follows the second route - the Commission is answerable to the elected Parliament. People are often unaware of the extent of the Parliament's control over the Commission - the Parliament can reject the Commission initially (for example, in rejecting Buttiglione), can unseat the Commission through a vote of No Confidence (for example, in the mass resignation of the Santer Commission), and can also reject the Commission's proposed budgets (as in 2006). Legislatively, they have the power both to amend legislation and to reject it - rejecting, for example, the proposed software patents directive and the proposed ports directive.

Such a system is similar to the way we run local councils - the majority of what happens in councils is the result of the work of the professional expert staff and management rather than councillors, but the councillors act as a form of democratic control over the council.

It is different to the way we run parliamentary democracies - because the European Parliament does not form the government of the EU, as they would in a state. If the Parliament did directly form the government of the EU, they would be thereby superior - within the EU's competences - to the elected governments of the member states. It should be obvious that such an arrangement would make the EU a federal super-state, and is not in fact desirable. The Parliament, therefore, are part of the "government" of the EU, but are balanced against the other institutions. They exist primarily to prevent the other democratically mandated body - the Council - from running the EU without any direct reference to the citizens.

So, coming all the way round to the Commission again - the Commission is subject to both the Parliament and the Council. It can propose all the laws and budgets it likes, but it cannot pass them without the consent of at least one of the other two bodies, both of which are democratically mandated. In certain areas, the Commission does pass regulations by itself, but only where it has been delegated the power to do so by the Council, who can withdraw such permission at any time.

As to why it is preferable that the indirect option is used rather than the direct election of the Commission, there are a couple of considerations.

The main issue is that a Commissioner does not represent their country, but is instead mandated by the treaties to act in the interests of Europe as a whole. I appreciate it's de rigeur for people to say "yeah, right" to that, but the evidence is that that's exactly what they do - the strongest evidence is the voluntary relinquishment of the second Commissioner that the big countries used to have. If Commissioners did act in national interests on any regular basis, the big member states would have kept them - the original reason behind the 2 Commissioners for large states rule was that the governments didn't originally trust the Commission to operate impartially.

By contrast to an appointed Commissioner, an elected Commissioner has an electorate to keep happy. They will have been elected by a national electorate (or, rather, a part of one) to carry out a particular agenda - and that agenda will inevitably be a national (or sub-national) one. If they wish to be re-elected, they have to push through some part of the electoral program they put to the voters as a manifesto - whether it makes sense for Europe as a whole or not. That makes every Commissioner a national agent - which may seem like a good idea until you consider that we only have one vote out of 27 on the Commission.

In turn, this means that the Commissioners will constantly be proposing legislation that benefits their particular country - or the part of it that voted for them (which may be only a small fraction) - rather than considering Europe-wide solutions.

For my money, it's much better to have the Commissioners suggested by whatever means (and there's nothing in the treaties that stops us electing our Commissioner), and for them then to be subject to the Parliament. It may not look as democratic, but it is a perfectly standard way of democratically controlling a technocratic body like the Commission.

cordially,
Scofflaw

thats the best post on the issue of commissioners and democracy in the eu! the 'yes' side should copy and paste that to every one of its statements!
well done, man!

Steviemak

Mario007 wrote: »

thats the best post on the issue of commissioners and democracy in the eu! the 'yes' side should copy and paste that to every one of its statements!
well done, man!

I concur!

conchubhar1

its a great post and comments - but its one side of the multi demensional coin (im not criticisng it)

netron

"It may not look as democratic, but it is a perfectly standard way of democratically controlling a technocratic body like the Commission."

No thanks. I'd rather have the folks making up laws that affect my daily life to be directly accountable to the electorate.


Your explanation of the Commission is well worded - I thank you for it.

But I am afraid that i just have to disagree with it - not your explanation itself , or with you, but with how the Commission works , as explained by yourself.

I find it fundementally undemocratic. And as such , I will still be voting No.

I guess this is a case of us agreeing to disagree.

netron

Mario007 wrote: »

thats the best post on the issue of commissioners and democracy in the eu! the 'yes' side should copy and paste that to every one of its statements!
well done, man!

I'll be forwarding it on to No campaigners. Its one of the best arguments against the current EU that I have read.

We the electorate are obviously too plebian to even consider European wide arguments. We're too thick - THEY know better.


Yeah. As if 1776 never happened. Or 1916.

No thanks.