CyclopsRock
Member
Oopsie, I meant "supranational". Even then, "International" is better. I'm a dumdum head.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
European Parliament Elections 2014 |OT| The Undemocratic EU is Actually Elected
- Thread starter anonymous_abc
- Start date
- Status
Oopsie, I meant "supranational". Even then, "International" is better. I'm a dumdum head.
I was checking that out just now.
TOTALLY expected by me (I was uncertain between Farage and Le Pen, but still).
They're going to need at least 5 more BFFs to make a fraction or whatever they're called in the EP.
Sickboy007
Member
Il Fatto had a headline describing Farage as the "xenophobic leader of UKIP", later they changed it to "independentist leader". lol is all I have to say.
One could argue that it goes against everything the M5S stands for, but the "movement" doesn't stand for anything at all, so...
anonymous_abc
Member
They are called groups.
And this is unexpected, then again I know too little about Italian politics and the 5SM...
One could be the biggest expert in Italian politics and still having a tiny grasp of M5S (ahah it never occured to me that outside Italy it's 5SM!).
It being completely web based, we have the privilege of reading all their rants on our Facebook walls, and, at least on mine, Farage name is a recurring one in their posts, especially for his visions about Europe and Euro, since way before I even had the slightest idea of who he was.
Italy is a whining country, and we often assume that other countries do everything better (hence our surprise for these elections outcome
). In Italian there is a proper word, "esterofilia", translated on Wordreference as "passion for foreign things".Farage was like the "foreign-phile" justification for some M5S ideals.
Fact is, M5S represent all ideas and none at the same time, so they can propose left things along right without falling in any contradictions (for them, at least, because from ìoutside those contradictions are clearer).
So, it's easy for them to fall in plain populism. And what's more populist nowadays than being against immigration and Euro?
Il Fatto had a headline describing Farage as the "xenophobic leader of UKIP", later they changed it to "independentist leader". lol is all I have to say.
One could argue that it goes against everything the M5S stands for, but the "movement" doesn't stand for anything at all, so...
The movement stands for unbridled stupidity so it works really well.
Mt Heart Attack
Member
Repubblica.it has just published a slideshow reporting a collection of quotations from Farage and other UKIP members, what bunch of racist, homophobic, misogynistic assholes lol And 30% of Britons voted for these guys? Guess I gotta re-evaluate all the people who voted for Berlusconi all these years now.
Many M5S members seem not to be looking too favourably at the prospect of an alliance with Farage though, which is understandable since they're the exact opposite on so many topics (economic policy first and foremost, but also immigration, sustainable energy, ...).
Even though most of them (and most voters) would just blindly and uncritically follow Grillo in everything he does, so yea.
SmellyFingers
Banned
Bit late to this thread also lolled at the thread title, if only we could elect the commission eh? Anyway, congrats UKIP better have a good 2015 manifesto though.
Frankfurter
Member
Why would a 200k net migration not be sustainable for the UK, though? There are quite a few countries that have a considerably larger net migration rate per capita.
Just btw. the UKs issue isn't that France or someone else will veto renegotiations, it's that 25 or 26 others will veto. On just about every matter Cameron's talking about renegotiations, which of course is difficult to achieve if 25+ members are fine with the status quo.
Immigration isn't what's breaking our schools or our health service; chronic underinvestment, private sector involvement and constant meddling are what's breaking them.
Immigration is just a dog-whistle certain types of politician use to convince people to support policies that aren't in their interest.
I would say the increase in your average age as well as costly new medical advancements drive up healthcare costs more than anything else, as they have pretty much everywhere else in Europe.
True. I think one of the best things the continent could do would be to nationalise (or supranationalise) the pharmaceutical sector. Better targeted research and an absence of shareholders to leach profits means cheaper drugs.
That would be vast government overreach as far as I'm concerned, just negotiating with the drug companies as the government should suffice as far as pharmaceuticals are concerned. I think with regard to healthcare, we are facing a rather uncomfortable question though: Do we want to significantly up our expenditures (whether personal or via taxation), do we want to ration care to degrees people would not be comfortable with now (for instance, not going to extremes to prolong life) or do we want to take an overall decline in healthcare quality? I don't like any of those options, and I doubt anyone else does, but given the demographic shift all of Europe is experiencing, it seems inevitable that harsh measures will be necessary to maintain the systems.
When it comes to medicine and public health, I don't think there's such a thing as overreach. I just don't think private pharmas can ever provide value for money. Their incentive isn't to cure or prevent ailment, but to manage it in a way that profits them. We shouldn't be afraid to nationalise where it makes sense, and I can't see why it wouldn't in this sector.
He's an interesting metric that I don't think I've seen: GDP per person-years, or GDP divided by sum of the age of everyone in the economy.
He's an interesting metric that I don't think I've seen: GDP per person-years, or GDP divided by sum of the age of everyone in the economy.
QuicheFontaine
Member
anonymous_abc
Member
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-27653359
I increasingly believe if Junker doesn't get the job we can all just pack up and go home anyway as it would be a major fu to the electorate and make all future elections seem even more pointless.
No matter what the treaties say exactly, everyone played along with the game of 'letting the people decide'. It would be disingenuous to not go with that.
I increasingly believe if Junker doesn't get the job we can all just pack up and go home anyway as it would be a major fu to the electorate and make all future elections seem even more pointless.
No matter what the treaties say exactly, everyone played along with the game of 'letting the people decide'. It would be disingenuous to not go with that.
michaelius
Banned
Why nationalise whole sector when you can have a few small goverment funded companies working on unprofitable projects ?
anonymous_abc
Member
Because the big pharmaceuticals make big bux on the small things that is meant to cross subsidise the more expensive extravagansas.
Only giving the expensive uneconomical tasks to the public sector only leads to incredibly high costs being shouldered by the tax payer while the private corporations rake in the cash.
Also don't forget a lot of research that theit big money is based is often originaly funded for by the public.
It's the same in every sector.
eg: Private companies would love to deliver post in London, but they sure as hell don't want to be responsible to deliver to some end of nowhere address in Scotland.
I feel out of the loop, what is the deal with Juncker?
anonymous_abc
Member
He is the candidate for the position of commission president of the EPP group in the European parliament.
The various groups of the EP (more or less) decided prior to the election to back the candidate of the largest group as commission president.
The EPP group got the largest vote share.
Originally the commission president would be chosen by the heads of state. The Lisbon Treaty however states that the EP-vote 'should be' taken into account in that choice. The EP sees this as a mandate to be able to muscle greater control over that choice. Either way the EP gets to vote or veto a candidate that the heads of state propose.
And during the election everyone shared in the charade of telling the electorate that they where defacto choosing the commission president by voting for a specific group in the elections.
If the heads of state go against that now they are telling the electorate that their choice doesn't matter!
Ah, thank you. I was mostly curious if people were angry about Juncker being chosen since that seems reasonable to me due to EPP being the current largest group (not a group I like, but eh).
He's a raving Federalist who thinks the EU should have full control over the members budgets.
ThoseDeafMutes
Member
I'm assuming you're not a Federalist.
MisterFalcon
Member
Don't worry, it has been made very clear already with the referendum on the EU constitution the electorate does not matter. A EU president from a tiny coutry representing 29% of the seats in the EP makes perfect sense.
CyclopsRock
Member
This is the inevitable result of an executive position that isn't elected and in which the elections for a totally different body have to be "considered".
Sonik
Member
The simple fact that they're discussing whether to appoint the person the European people voted for shows what a fucking joke EU is. I don't like Juncker one bit but still this is fucking preposterous.
If he wants EU to have control of other members budgets then they should unify EU's economy and banking sector. Letting Germany force their shitty austerity measures to other countries while they remain unaffected is disgusting to say the least.
If he wants EU to have control of other members budgets then they should unify EU's economy and banking sector. Letting Germany force their shitty austerity measures to other countries while they remain unaffected is disgusting to say the least.
michaelius
Banned
Haha you must be new to the whole EU business.
EU unification means EU unificaying in doing what Paris and Berlin wants
anonymous_abc
Member
What are you taliking about?
I'm the last person to defend the austerity policies. But German workers have had their fair share of hardship in the last 20 years. The fruits of which are somewhat 'flowering' now. Just look at wage increases in Germany over the last 2 decades. German workers have paid a high price for the current state of their economy. It's not as easy as saying zee evil Germanz
First image that I could come up with.
No, nothing the EU has done inspires me with confidence that we are anywhere near that.
...what the hell?
Sonik
Member
I'm the last person to defend the austerity policies. But German workers have had their fair share of hardship in the last 20 years. The fruits of which are somewhat 'flowering' now. Just look at wage increases in Germany over the last 2 decades.
First image that I could come up with.
German workers were swindled by political scum and Germany's elite. After all that wealth the country has created the last few years they only got a small portion of it while corporations and banks made a fortune. Also austerity might work during an economic boom but it's destructive during recession, this is a well known fact.
The reason why Germany is doing so well isn't because Germans were conned, it's because their corporations could exploit EU's free market creating huge trade surpluses while the rest of the union was going the opposite direction, naturally. This is why trade unions are always a disaster for the little guys and not that beneficial even for the citizens of the powerful countries who get swindled in the name of competitive economy.
Haha you must be new to the whole EU business.
EU unification means EU unifying in doing what Paris and Berlin wants
I know, it has all the negatives of unification without any of the positives except for the couple of countries that control EU.
Haha you must be new to the whole EU business.
EU unification means EU unificaying in doing what Paris and Berlin wants
Lack of unification allows Berlin and Paris to dominate neighbouring countries without them having any say in the matter, at least in the EU, small countries have a voice and can cooperate to exert influence over policy. It's not like Europe's great powers didn't dominate their smaller neighbours in the past. There's no reason to believe they wouldn't go back to that if the EU were dissolved. Plus, with a truly unified EU, we also reduce the risk (well, reality, let's be fair) of foreign powers attempting to divide and conquer to achieve their aims.
This post is so blindingly ignorant it hurts.
He's the candidate from the largest single grouping in the EP. There ARE NO CANDIDATES WITH A GREATER MANDATE THAN JUNKER.
I'd be happy if the entire Commission came from the Parliament rather than member states, but member states are reluctant to give up control of the selection process. For that you can blame anyone but the EU. Junker's appointment is opposed only by Cameron, Orbán and Reinfeldt.
Sonik
Member
Let's not pretend that EU doesn't help Berlin and Paris exert influence a lot more than usual, there a countless of examples of how they've used EU to meddle in other countries affairs more than ever before (great example cannes 2011 and how they decided who to appoint as PM in Italy). The lack a real unification does allow Berlin and Paris to dominate neighbouring countries which is why they'll never accept it and why EU is most probably a lost cause.
MisterFalcon
Member
And that's the problem in a nutshell.
anonymous_abc
Member
Yea if a politician isn't elected by 99% of the electorate there just is no mandate.
That's why only Assad, Vladimir et al are true democrats because they truly represent all the people.
...walk us through this problem.
David Cameron became prime minister with 36.1% of the popular vote. Tony Blair was last voted in with 35.2%. Angela Merkel first came to power with 35.2% of the vote. Stefan Lofven was voted in with 30.1%.
So what's the problem you see, and what's the solution you want?
ThoseDeafMutes
Member
Unlike in the bloody EU, true democracies only allow people to be put in charge if they recieved more than 50% of every first preference vote, or 50% of total votes in non-preferential systems!
Sonik
Member
I guess he's saying that 29% isn't a majority no matter how you frame it. My standards and expectations for democracy in EU are so low that I'll take even the 29%, and even by these standards EU fails since they're now discussing whether to allow Junker to be the president.
It isn't a majority, but this thankfully isn't a two party system.
It's just the "disadvantage" of Proportional Representation vs First Past the Post. Personally I think a more representative government like this is better than "strong government", as UK politicians like to spin it.
Funky Papa
FUNK-Y-PPA-4
Juncker is still a gross old man.
God damn it.
God damn it.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27675294
this is a cool story about the EU. No wonder Nigel Farage and the likes want to get out, won't somebody think of those poor property developers hoarding all the property.
this is a cool story about the EU. No wonder Nigel Farage and the likes want to get out, won't somebody think of those poor property developers hoarding all the property.
It doesn't matter, there is no majority in Europe that will support another Council pawn.
anonymous_abc
Member
Absolutely agree.
CyclopsRock
Member
It's a little more complicated than that though, surely? Firstly, we didn't vote for any individual - we voted for national parties, which in turn join larger groups, which in turn present candidates which in turn can be ignored by the Commission if they want to, though ultimately they need a consensus. So it's not like we all voted for Obama and now they're trying to give us Romney. Lumping the executive in with the legislature is always a bad idea - it's one of the worst parts about the UK constitution but at least in the UK it "makes sense" insomuch as our executive is a part of the legislature - all members of government are in the legislature and their "power" comes from the fact that they're at the top of the party with a majority. If you removed the idea of having an executive entirely from the UK and did everything through the legislature, the head of the largest party would still have all the control (which is why the monarchy is technically still our executive and why the actual cabinet are all from the legislature) That's not the case in the EU, where if you removed the commission and had the parliament propose and vote upon its own legislation, with laws passed with a majority vote, you wouldn't have a single obvious "leader" precisely because there are a number of groups, none of which have a majority of the power. As such, the UK system can be seen as more organic and less artificial than the EU one, though even on the best of days, apeing the worst part of the British political system isn't exactly something to shout about.
Is there any decent reason why we don't just vote directly for the head of the commission? I assume it's because they know that most people a) won't care, b) won't know the candidates or c) have a preference anyway, especially if there isn't one from their own nation which is probably all true, or sort of also makes a mockery of the idea that Juncker was "elected" this time.
The reason is that the member states were and are unwilling to move away from their power, their very own interests.
- Status