Chit Chat
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
Row over race to succeed EU's Juncker
The race to succeed Jean-Claude Juncker as head of the first post-Brexit European Commission begins later this month -- and in typical EU style it is starting with a row about how the race should be run.
While the EU's French Brexit negotiator Michel Barnier is the rumoured early front runner to take charge of the bloc's executive arm in 2019, the process itself has not even got off the ground.
At stake is not just a power struggle between national leaders and the European Parliament over who chooses Juncker's successor, but questions about democracy that could give fresh ammunition to eurosceptics opposed to the EU.
Juncker was picked in 2014 by a new and controversial "Spitzenkandidat" system -- German for "lead candidate" -- under which the biggest political group in the European Parliament gets to nominate its candidate for the job.
The European Council of 28 national leaders then makes the final choice, "taking account" of the parliament's nomination, in the vaguely worded provision of its the EU's treaties. The whole parliament gets a vote at the end.
But many of those national leaders, who will discuss the issue at a Brussels summit on February 23, oppose what they view as a stitch-up by MEPs that robs countries of their power to pick who will fill one of the continent's most influential roles.
In 2014 there was some frustration in a number of capitals that the process which led to the nomination of Juncker was not transparent enough," a European source said on condition of anonymity.
Another fear is that if eurosceptic groups win the next European elections in May 2019 they could pick an outlier candidate -- for example France's Marine Le Pen or Greek former finance minister Yanis Varoufakis -- and the EU leaders could then be obliged to back them, sources said.
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/row-over-race-succeed-eus-juncker-034543547.html
How about allowing the 500 million citizens to vote?
The race to succeed Jean-Claude Juncker as head of the first post-Brexit European Commission begins later this month -- and in typical EU style it is starting with a row about how the race should be run.
While the EU's French Brexit negotiator Michel Barnier is the rumoured early front runner to take charge of the bloc's executive arm in 2019, the process itself has not even got off the ground.
At stake is not just a power struggle between national leaders and the European Parliament over who chooses Juncker's successor, but questions about democracy that could give fresh ammunition to eurosceptics opposed to the EU.
Juncker was picked in 2014 by a new and controversial "Spitzenkandidat" system -- German for "lead candidate" -- under which the biggest political group in the European Parliament gets to nominate its candidate for the job.
The European Council of 28 national leaders then makes the final choice, "taking account" of the parliament's nomination, in the vaguely worded provision of its the EU's treaties. The whole parliament gets a vote at the end.
But many of those national leaders, who will discuss the issue at a Brussels summit on February 23, oppose what they view as a stitch-up by MEPs that robs countries of their power to pick who will fill one of the continent's most influential roles.
In 2014 there was some frustration in a number of capitals that the process which led to the nomination of Juncker was not transparent enough," a European source said on condition of anonymity.
Another fear is that if eurosceptic groups win the next European elections in May 2019 they could pick an outlier candidate -- for example France's Marine Le Pen or Greek former finance minister Yanis Varoufakis -- and the EU leaders could then be obliged to back them, sources said.
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/row-over-race-succeed-eus-juncker-034543547.html
How about allowing the 500 million citizens to vote?
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 43
|
By:
Did I miss your thread on how disgraceful it was that May is our PM?
|
|
By:
What's the point, if the people "elect" the wrong candidate they'll just get the losing side patronising them that they are stupid and ill informed and demanding a re-run
   |
|
By:
It's not a presidential system in the UK. hth....
|
|
By:
But we are a democracy though? Right? As per the title of the thread.
|
|
By:
None of the 500 million citizens are permitted to run for President.
Could you imagine if Le Pen got it. I think the extreme lefty Momentum types would implode. |
|
By:
May got most votes. Millions of them.
For this job of President hundreds of millions are denied a vote or any say. No mechanism exists to remove this President. A bit like Putin. |
|
By:
May got voted to the post of PM by Conservative MPs and no-one else. Not even Tory party members or those who voted for the party. Dozens of millions of people were denied a vote on who our leader would be.
|
|
By:
She received the most votes at the last election. Millions of them. I don't need to explain how our Parliamentary democracy works do I?
|
|
By:
Aah, I see what you mean.
ok, allow me to re-phrase. Did I miss your thread on how disgraceful it was that May was given the PM's job after Cameron skulked off? |
|
By:
Gordon Brown?
|
|
By:
Given the topic of this thread could you explain how it is democratically possible for hundreds of millions of people to be denied a vote for this President, could you explain why the same hundreds of millions are not permitted to run for this office? Could you explain why no mechanism exists at all to ever remove this President regardless of anything he might do?
Thanks in advance.... |
|
By:
I would argue that it is a sh!tload more democratic than how May got given the gig in 2016. So maybe we should get our own house in order before getting our knickers in a twist about anothers'.
|
|
By:
May got most votes in a general election, as I stated. The way each Party elects their leader is well known and they then face at some point after the ultimate democratic test - a general election. You know all this.
You refuse to answer on the topic of thread. Do you know why you refuse? The rest of us do. It's because you can't. Your position is so weak it will not withstand any debate. That's why you refuse to discuss the point and try to deflect with your nonsense. Such tactics might work at your Friday night book club but not in the real world. You would have been better remaining silent as you did on the 'Where Remainiacs went wrong' thread. Just embarrassed yourself again. |
|
By:
Also, there is a mechanism to remove May. We may see that mechanism very soon.
No mechanism whatsoever exists to remove the unelected President. |
|
By:
And the way the EU elects its president is known. You know all this but are simply feigning knicker-twisting to impress your friends. I know this. You know this. You know that I know and others know this. And yet you still do it. You may want to consider that for a while.
|
|
By:
And still no answers....
|
|
By:
see friends. see how I'm winning my argument. I am winning aren't I. Please validate me friends. Friends?
|
|
By:
And still no answers...
|
|
By:
I don't think that 'winning' really enters this discussion. As a battle of wits you are unarmed. I cannot be 'winning' as it's too much like a walkover.
|
|
By:
ooh, that was a good comeback wasn't it friends.
(I presume you're all just laughing so hard you can't wipe the tears out of your eyes to type your support) |
|
By:
And now the new tactic for refusing to answer is clear.
So embarrassing. |
|
By:
Burt you are making the classic mistake when arguing with a leftie, they can't win on the subject that you brought up, so they try to divert the subject onto another one, then try to claim victory...
|
|
By:
Yay! The cavalry.
|
|
By:
They will also attack you, trying ridicule and insults. Classic tactics from them.
Just look at recent posts from anxious whenever he mentions Tories, May, JRM or Thatcher. They can't help themselves. Perhaps I should say Saint Margaret just to infuriate him. |
|
By:
Given the topic of this thread could you explain how it is democratically possible for hundreds of millions of people to be denied a vote for this President, could you explain why the same hundreds of millions are not permitted to run for this office? Could you explain why no mechanism exists at all to ever remove this President regardless of anything he might do?
Thanks in advance.... Worthy of a repost just in case there is any Remainiac, lefty, Momentum type extremist that wants to have a bash at answering. UB and PP have both left the building vis-a-vis answering the above following a shocking innings where both scored a golden duck. |
|
By:
Still here (not sure why UB is mentioned though. Slightly odd). And, to confirm I did answer your original post. You may not have liked the answer, but that's a different thing.
|
|
By:
UB is mentioned because this thread is also on politics.
You did not as you say answer my original post, instead you asked a question. I answered the question then you re-phrased your question. Again I answered. You then replied : I would argue that it is a sh!tload more democratic than how May got given the gig in 2016. So maybe we should get our own house in order before getting our knickers in a twist about anothers'. That is not an answer to : Given the topic of this thread could you explain how it is democratically possible for hundreds of millions of people to be denied a vote for this President, could you explain why the same hundreds of millions are not permitted to run for this office? Could you explain why no mechanism exists at all to ever remove this President regardless of anything he might do? So without reference to our own Parliament and political Parties would you are to answer? |
|
By:
*care
|
|
By:
To be fair if Anxious went to the chip shop and they told him it would be 5 minutes for chips, he'd launch into a rant about Thatcher, and Chip Shop Tory Spivs...
|
|
By:
As a slight distraction, the new "ancestor DNA" advert is quite annoying, saying we are "leaving europe" etc.
Come up with during a brainstorming session amongst London remain voting tore sirs I'd imagine. |
|
By:
You do understand that it's permissible to answer a question with a further question? To whit - why are you so bothered about another political organisation being undemocratic when our own government had no interest in the electorate's opinion in 2016?
|
|
By:
And still he refuses to answer.
|
|
By:
And still he refuses to see that which he does not want to see.
|
|
By:
Testier and testier, you post in the style of a man who's watching it all slip away.
|
|
By:
Fascinating new tactic though.
How does it go? 'I know, I'll say I have answered, than ask him an unrelated question. Then I'll say he can't see my answer - but trust me, it is there. I'll say he doesn't see it because he doesn't want to - ye that'll fool them all, I'm a genius' Phew.  |
|
By:
Sealioning. That's what it is. Took me a minute to dig up the word.
|
|
By:
To be fair though, the tactic of refusing to answer is maybe better than answering. On politics Biscuitbrain had the following to say:
unitedbiscuits 04 Feb 18 18:33 You have to laugh when Brexiteers start banging on about democracy. Look at the situation in this country. Disregard the majority who did not vote for Brexit |
|
By:
The dogmatist will never answer.
|
|
By:
porky has too many links and interests to allow him to be critical of the eu.
|