Maybe you should read up a bit before posting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Witton Park
I had no idea if you were right or wrong, took me a few seconds on google to find out.
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2...d-bureaucrats/
Printable View
Maybe you should read up a bit before posting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Witton Park
I had no idea if you were right or wrong, took me a few seconds on google to find out.
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2...d-bureaucrats/
There are also many qangos in the UK that aren't elected. They have varying degrees of power over many areas of our lives.
WP, that is correct. But, unless you have come into direct contact with it, it is difficult to comprehend the massive power and imperviousness to redirection that commissioners wield.
My eyes were opened about 15 years ago when we came up against a European Commissioner who was completely resistant to common sense change when he was imposing a Health and Safety Directive that would, at a stroke, have removed the tool of MRI scanning from medicine. This was an unintended consequence of H&S legislation aimed at protecting workers exposed to industrial electromagnetic fields. Despite major lobbying from all European Radiological Associations, Commissioner Spidler was completely intransigent. In the end, all these associations had to link hands with the manufacturers to pay for a full time lobbying office in Brussels. At the eleventh hour, after 10 years of pressure, the commission agreed to 'de-rogate' the law as it applied to medicine. This is a posh way of saying suspension not removal of the threat.
The complete bollocks of this took massive time, energy and money away from more pressing uses such as patient care. That for me was the 'tipping point'.
Wheeze something like that would never happen with the elected house of commons, oh wait the Poll Tax.....
Is there a relationhip between a person's intransigence and how they got into their role?
There was nothing wrong with the poll tax. A very vocal minority managed to get it overturned by shouting very loudly, and what did we end up with, yet another tax on those fortunate enough to live in an expensive area but not necessarily wealthy.
It is becoming a increasingly rare for a minister to be from the House of Lords, especially in the cabinet. See the full list in the link below. Only a small smattering from the Lords and all relatively minor positionsQuote:
Originally Posted by Gambatte
https://www.gov.uk/government/ministers
The Royals, are you serious? Do you actually believe they make any laws?
the relative power of the Commission wasn't the issue here, the question was about their "elected" or otherwise nature and it seems pretty certain that this is a body which is accountable and elected. The power issue is a different argument. As has been said, that is something which is far from ideal. The conflation of "unelected" and the way in which power is distributed is a way of muddying the argument when it's clear that the Commission is indeed elected. The points about the upper house and the monarchy also remain.
Love this heading in the Guardian this morning
"Politics live No-deal Brexit still on the table, says Leadsom"
The UK is reserving the right to step on your foot before shooting ourselves in the foot.
How is the Commission elected? How can they be accountable if we the people can't fire them?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave_Mole
The House of Lords is an anachronism and should be reformed in my opinion but at least it is only a secondary chamber. It can only delay the verdict of the Commons for a year maximum.
The monarchy argument is not relevant since it holds only ceremonial powers.
They are not elected by popular vote, but must be approved by the elected MEPs
Then, once the Commission President is chosen, each EU member state nominates a Commissioner, and each Commissioner is then subject to a hearing in one of the committees of the European Parliament (modelled on US Senate hearings of US Presidential nominees to the US cabinet). If a committee issues a ‘negative opinion’ the candidate is usually withdrawn by the government concerned. After the hearings, the team of 28 is then subject to an up/down ‘investiture vote’ by a simple majority of the MEPs.
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2...d-bureaucrats/
I must admit I can't remember ever voting sombody into a specific cabinate position. That must be because they are nominated.
Not such a serious case, but I have also experience of the Commission on 2 counts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wheeze
First was the anti-dumping duty and quota imposed on footwear in the late 90s.
Ironically UK manufacturing had been decimated through the late 80s and early 90s as Spain and Portugal joined the EEC.To survive quite a few UK businesses look ed to import and invested lots of time and money in setting up a supply chain in the Far East.
Only for the EU to bring in measures to protect the competitors that had been the main accelerant to the UK closures in the first place.
A double-whammy for the UK companies involved and for 20 years now the UK punter has paid inflated prices for footwear.
The Uk Government voted against back in the late 90s and have done so each time these measures have come up for review.
Clarks have also won a case in the ECJ who found the anti-dumping measures were illegal. They are still in place.
Second was when I held some shares in British Airways also back in the 90s. BA along with other EU airlines took the French Govt and Air France to court for illegal state aid.
They won - it was a court procedure over several years, but the ECJ found in their favour and Air France were directed to repay around 2 Billion Francs back.
A slight of hand from Commissioner Kinnock got them off the hook.
This article pisses me off and not becaues of "I told you so". No it is a case of these businesses first port of call is to go abroad to get the right staff, maybe the umbrella organisation should try jumping on their membership to offer high quality apprentiships and train their own British staff.
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...urant-industry
I think they should also look at the number of restaurants that are little more than pop-up shop laundering operations.Quote:
Originally Posted by DrPatrickBarry
Right, I think thats agreed then. The Commission is unelected. Its bad enough with one unelected upper chamber, never mind two. Get rid of one and sort the other out.
Quote:
Right, I think thats agreed then. The Commission is unelected
...which is why I don't usually bother getting involved in conversations about Brexit. You can try and get to the core of an argument, try to explore just what it is that is seen to be a problem, and yet people persist in maintaing positions which aren't based on any sort of evidence. Just like the current government and so-called "negotiations" over the backstop.
Well, it was fun whilst it lasted.....
This forum used to be fun......Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave_Mole
Actually this country used to be fun...... before the boring B word.
Started to disappear with the safety rules changes.Quote:
Originally Posted by millipede
I always pin my number to my vest before posting :oQuote:
Started to disappear with the safety rules changes.
So most are unelected people.
And now have too much power.
Well I'm hopefully off for some fun now at Bleasdale.Quote:
Originally Posted by millipede
On the contrary Milli. Brexit is one of the most interesting times in modern politics.Quote:
Originally Posted by millipede
Other EU countries appear to have a lot of discontent.
Is it a sign of the times that authority is out of touch with the majority?
You're right CL, it's fascinating to watch whether you view it with delight or despair. "May you live in interesting times" is normally said to be a curse.Quote:
Originally Posted by CL
It's wearing a bit thin though now. Can you imagine a transition of up to 4 years under May's WA?Quote:
Originally Posted by noel
Four more posts would be bad enough
I’m in the possibly unique position for me of agreeing with both Christopher and Graham. Brexit is fascinating; the defining event politically I suspect of many of our lives. Reading about it on a fellrunners forum is not sadly
But if it has brought about such a meeting of minds maybe in years to come people will say "Ah Brexit. It really was a force for good".😁Quote:
Originally Posted by Derby Tup
Yeah... maybe!Quote:
Originally Posted by Graham Breeze
http://dougreavis.com/wp-content/upl...pigs-fly-1.jpg
Interesting that the seven MPs who have quit the Labour Party this morning are refusing to trigger by-elections in their constituencies. All favour a second EU referendum on the grounds they say that the people aren't getting what they thought they were voting for in 2016. The seven MPs were elected at the 2017 General Election as representatives of the Labour party but now they no longer are. Surely using their rationale for a second referendum they should be going back to the people. How do they square these rather contradictory views I wonder.
Not so keen on a "People's vote" now are they.
This was the best comment I've seen today.Quote:
Originally Posted by Muddy Retriever
"Chuka Umunna and his colleagues seem to have accepted that if you cannot reform an organisation from within then you ought to leave it."
Tick-tock there time is limited
All gone a bit quiet on here. Anyone else relieved / pleased a no-dealer might be looking less likely than previously?
There isn't really any such thing as a no dealer.
You need to separate out the elements.
The first element is the Withdrawal Agreement. This is a pre-agreed way whilst we are still members of the EU to sign up to a 3-4 year transition.
During this period we are still subject to the EU rules and regs, the ECJ and all the trappings of EU membership but without any influence.
Talk of continuity, talk of avoiding a cliff edge are misleading as we do not know what the EU might pass in that period.
I've been in an industry clobbered by EU policy. Once bitten….
If we cannot agree that WA, we would leave under WTO terms as far as trade goes and we would end our other links to CAP, CFP, Erasmus, ECJ...…. all the EU institutions.
However, we already have several side deals on transport, travel etc being cleared in anticipation and there will be more up to the 29th March and beyond.
It doesn't mean we won't have a future arrangement, it just means it won't be done under the umbrella of article 50.
Personally I welcome that.
On March 30th I would still be prepared to keep the £39B on the table and the UK can then talk to the EU as a 3rd country, volunteer to retain standards while further dialogue goes ahead and I actually think it has a better chance of us agreeing a deal that might be more acceptable.
Currently the EU says it cannot talk future relationship until we leave and that's a big problem, signing away a lot, not just money either, but trade policy and legal powers, and for the possibility of limbo for 4 years and beyond that four years, the possibility of more acrimony as we would be in the backstop situation.
Hard to see anything happening on March 29th.
I know Patrick. The fog has got too thick.
People will call it "kicking the can down the road", but this worked really well with an extremly controversial issue in Ireland. Personally I would go for the same, give this grouping a few months to trash out the various options in a non-partison environment, so they can come up with a plan and either put it to parliment or the people.
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ion-referendum
Why can you not accept that it has already been put to the people and the answer was LEAVE.
We did not vote to negotiate a plan, agreement, back stop or any other delaying bollocks but just simply to LEAVE and, when we have, then the negotiations could start.
I think it's because a substantial proportion of those who voted to remain think a substantial proportion of those who voted to leave are stupid for doing so. :)
Oh yes. Thanks for the tip off forum regular. I really like this as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by noel
Genius. 😂
Haha that’s exactly what I think 🤔
You had a vote.
You voted for your choice.
Now please have the decency to accept the result.
We live in a democracy. Or do we?