Klaus wrote:

And the hard Brexit you're pushing for will put an end to exactly that.

There's not even a choice after that, really, because it's simply an automatic consequence to a hard Brexit.

The UK diverging from EU rules and regulations forces a hard border, with all the consequences.

If there was no choice in the matter then how does the ROI sign an individual agreement for free movement of Irish citizens but not for the greater EU members but it cannot make an agreement about the movement of goods across the border......... seems to me that Brussels is pulling the strings behind the scenes that are only in the interest of Brussels.

It a matter of record that Varadkar did not want to put up infrastructure on the border but since the meetings with Merkel/Macron those views are substantially changed.

BestWestern wrote:

It’s amazing that Theresa May fell and the tories were wiped out in the recent elections as the Irish Border question blocked brexit, yet a101 has the answer all along.

I feel so enlightened.

Don’t need to thank me I just hope you continue to feel that way

A101 wrote:

Klaus wrote:

And the hard Brexit you're pushing for will put an end to exactly that.

There's not even a choice after that, really, because it's simply an automatic consequence to a hard Brexit.

The UK diverging from EU rules and regulations forces a hard border, with all the consequences.

If there was no choice in the matter then how does the ROI sign an individual agreement for free movement of Irish citizens but not for the greater EU members

Individual member countries can talk to bordering Third Countries about how exactly to implement their border but whether or not to have one is a function of the differences between the EU and that Third Country and not at the discretion of an individual country.

but it cannot make an agreement about the movement of goods across the border......... seems to me that Brussels is pulling the strings behind the scenes that are only in the interest of Brussels.

It a matter of record that Varadkar did not want to put up infrastructure on the border but since the meetings with Merkel/Macron those views are substantially changed.

When your entire world view has shrunk down to just a bunch of conspiracy theories you're just blind to anything else.

Read the above linked article about the actual talks among EU members about the future borders with the UK – it is a completely different picture from those silly conspiracy theories.

New border and trade rules will be damaging and especially to Ireland, but while they're not rushing towards rolling out the barbed wire for very sound historical reasons, if and when the UK starts to diverge there will be a border with infrastructure. There's just no choice about it, both due to EU rules and due to WTO rules.

At that point, the UK would have shot down the Good Friday Agreement and in the process would have done major (additional) damage to its reputation as a treaty partner.

Klaus wrote:

Individual member countries can talk to bordering Third Countries about how exactly to implement their border but whether or not to have one is a function of the differences between the EU and that Third Country and not at the discretion of an individual country.

Thanks for clarifying that position, so I take it Brussels would have also had to agree on the free movement of Irish citizens agreement between ROI/UK

Klaus wrote:

When your entire world view has shrunk down to just a bunch of conspiracy theories you're just blind to anything else.
.

No conspiracy theories just the knowledge that what happens behind the closed political doors is not always the same spin doctored to the media.

Klaus wrote:

Read the above linked article about the actual talks among EU members about the future borders with the UK – it is a completely different picture from those silly conspiracy theories.
.

Hasn’t anyone told don’t believe everything you read in the paper

Klaus wrote:

New border and trade rules will be damaging and especially to Ireland, but while they're not rushing towards rolling out the barbed wire for very sound historical reasons, if and when the UK starts to diverge there will be a border with infrastructure. There's just no choice about it, both due to EU rules and due to WTO rules.

Partly correct, nothing in the WTO rules say you have to have a certain standard for a border in fact you don’t actually have to have one . There is no rule in the WTO requiring its member governments to secure their borders. Where other WTO members might object is that WTO’s non-discrimination rules, particularly “most-favoured-nation” treatment (MFN), where say there are no trade obstacles with ROI but trade with AU will without a FTA, where’s as the UK can then apply for WTO article XXI security exceptions Due under the premise of keeping the peace.

Klaus wrote:

At that point, the UK would have shot down the Good Friday Agreement and in the process would have done major (additional) damage to its reputation as a treaty partner

Once again show me what section the UK would be in violation.

A101 wrote:

JJJ wrote:

There was a border where documents were checked. Which is the point I've been making the whole time.
.

What your are referring to on the Irish border are customs checks, if you or you family arrived at the border in vehicle, you needed to declare goods bought and in the case of a car or truck customs would want stamp “triptyque” which is a pre-1965 paper allowing the temporary importation of the vehicle into the UK controlled area ( NI) if you arrived on foot there was no need for these procedures, in other words free movement across the border.

So your definition of free movement is one where you can only cross on foot?

Ask the Gibraltarians how does that work for them.

A101 wrote:

Partly correct, nothing in the WTO rules say you have to have a certain standard for a border in fact you don’t actually have to have one . There is no rule in the WTO requiring its member governments to secure their borders. Where other WTO members might object is that WTO’s non-discrimination rules, particularly “most-favoured-nation” treatment (MFN), where say there are no trade obstacles with ROI but trade with AU will without a FTA, where’s as the UK can then apply for WTO article XXI security exceptions Due under the premise of keeping the peace.

Of course the WTO will not tell you how to enforce a border, it's a trade not a policing authority.

What they will do is open the gates for everyone to throw the book at you for not doing enough to control your borders. If your only hope hinges on getting an exception well, let's just say the UK will be getting a taste of the glacial pace and heavy fines of the WTO (which probably works just fine for the current British leadership, they know they'll just be dumping it on following Prime Ministers).

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-48838498

EU Anthem. Ridiculous

noviorbis77 wrote:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-48838498

EU Anthem. Ridiculous

Childish is the better word .... as if those "I want out" MPs couldn´t have the wish and give up their 12.000 pound/month salary any time they like.....

#getout

Turning around also doesn't muffle the sound, I guess those Brexitparty members are too stupid to realize they have to cover their ears....

best regards
Thomas

noviorbis77 wrote:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-48838498

EU Anthem. Ridiculous

And a very smart move too (not)!
Trying to offend the negotiating partner you're eager to do a deal with, always works well.

Seems like some British still politicians haven't woken up to the new reality yet: as of the moment of Brexit, the UK will be following the EU wherever it goes like a little puppy, wagging its tail and performing its best tricks on simple demand from the Europeans , just like it's doing for the Americans since 70 years already...
Brits call it a special relationship... the rest of the world just calls it emotional self-insecurity.

https://youtu.be/ABhZQ_VRbsQ

A101 wrote:

Klaus wrote:

Individual member countries can talk to bordering Third Countries about how exactly to implement their border but whether or not to have one is a function of the differences between the EU and that Third Country and not at the discretion of an individual country.

Thanks for clarifying that position, so I take it Brussels would have also had to agree on the free movement of Irish citizens agreement between ROI/UK

That would have been much easier for everybody if the UK was in Schengen in the first place, making extra rules unnecessary.

Klaus wrote:

When your entire world view has shrunk down to just a bunch of conspiracy theories you're just blind to anything else.
.

No conspiracy theories just the knowledge that what happens behind the closed political doors is not always the same spin doctored to the media.

There is a difference between knowing about theoretical possibilities and fixed and adamant assumptions that the absolute worst theoretical possibility would definitely be real just because it was about the EU.

Klaus wrote:

Read the above linked article about the actual talks among EU members about the future borders with the UK – it is a completely different picture from those silly conspiracy theories.
.

Hasn’t anyone told don’t believe everything you read in the paper

It is quite reasonable and serious reporting without any noticeable bias or implausibility, quite the opposite of your own claims.

Klaus wrote:

New border and trade rules will be damaging and especially to Ireland, but while they're not rushing towards rolling out the barbed wire for very sound historical reasons, if and when the UK starts to diverge there will be a border with infrastructure. There's just no choice about it, both due to EU rules and due to WTO rules.

Partly correct, nothing in the WTO rules say you have to have a certain standard for a border in fact you don’t actually have to have one . There is no rule in the WTO requiring its member governments to secure their borders.

There is the rule that any other member of the WTO can sue any country which doesn't protect its borders and is thus undermining the WTO rules to the detriment of other members. And given the quite substantial resistance against UK proposals on the WTO level now, you can pretty much bet on such a violation turning into another WTO problem for the UK.

Where other WTO members might object is that WTO’s non-discrimination rules, particularly “most-favoured-nation” treatment (MFN), where say there are no trade obstacles with ROI but trade with AU will without a FTA, where’s as the UK can then apply for WTO article XXI security exceptions Due under the premise of keeping the peace.

You'll find that claim to be a lot harder to establish than apparently expected.

Klaus wrote:

At that point, the UK would have shot down the Good Friday Agreement and in the process would have done major (additional) damage to its reputation as a treaty partner

Once again show me what section the UK would be in violation.

The centerpiece of the GFA is the balancing of rights and opportunities between the Unionists (for unrestricted access to Britain) and the Republicans (for unrestricted access to the Republic of Ireland).

Brexit as envisaged by the ERG unilaterally specifically destroys just one half of that balance, namely the rights and opportunities to freely access the Republic of Ireland from Northern Ireland, thus destroying the entire internationally ratified Good Friday Agreement (guaranteed by the USA (at least whose Congress wouldn't stand for it) and by the European Union (ditto, all around)) and walking back the UK's given word in its creation, which would be a great start for any new international negotiations...

sabenapilot wrote:

Seems like some British still politicians haven't woken up to the new reality yet:Q

In deed

- between March 2019 and April 2019 the manufacturing sector output dropped by 3.9%, not even the GFC accomplished that.
- transport equipment fell by 13.4% in April, most Forum members where not alive last time it was worse than that.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/economic ... /april2019

And they are not even out yet....

best regards
Thomas

Have all of you Europhiles managed to decide who is going to be the next unelected Commission President yet? Or are you all still fighting in the sandpit?

KLDC10 wrote:

Have all of you Europhiles managed to decide who is going to be the next unelected Commission President yet? Or are you all still fighting in the sandpit?

Let me see: a group of elected politicians elect their next leader... I'd swear something very similar is happening right now in the UK, isn't it?

The only difference is in the EU this is done on a cross-party basis, so the next leaders can work with a stabe majority, both in number of people they represent as well as in number of seats they hold: might be a good idea to try it for the UK as well: it might have prevented the total political meltdown and complete national humiliation of the last 3 years…

sabenapilot wrote:

Let me see: a group of elected politicians elect their next leader... I'd swear something very similar is happening right now in the UK, isn't it?

The only difference is in the EU this is done on a cross-party basis, so the next leaders can work with a stabe majority, both in number of people they represent as well as in number of seats they hold: might be a good idea to try it for the UK as well: it might have prevented the total political meltdown and complete national humiliation of the last 3 years…

Nope. Members of a political party are democratically electing their next leader, who will happen to become Prime Minister by virtue of his party's control of the House of Commons.

Nonsense. The President of the European Commission doesn't need to hold a majority of seats in the European Parliament. The latter is a glorified rubber stamp which just does as it is told, or can be ignored in the event that it doesn't. Real democracy can be messy at times, but you wouldn't recognise that, because you don't have it.

KLDC10 wrote:

Have all of you Europhiles managed to decide who is going to be the next unelected Commission President yet?

Where do you get "unelected" from? Even if the "sandpit fighters" come up with a candidate, he still needs to be elected.
He is about as unelected as the speaker of house/Senate.

The candidate is chosen by elected heads of state/government, depends on how each member state does those, and voted into office by the directly elected parliament. Pretty much how every country, bar presidential republics, picks who is running the government.

In US politics that would be as if the Senate (well.. sorta governors panel actually) would agree on a candidate for US president and the house would vote if he gets the job or not. He however has a LOT less power than the US president, pretty much zero executive power.

I rather like the fact that it always leads to someone agreeable for most, even if preferences differ. It may not seem this way, but as far as power goes the commission president isn't all that relevant. He just runs the EU government for those elected bodies, just like a hired CEO, that also hold all the power.

Best regards
Thomas

Seriously you voted for Brexit THREE years ago and you are still in the EU like a tick. You should clean your house before....

KLDC10 wrote:

The President of the European Commission doesn't need to hold a majority of seats in the European Parliament. .

Please check Art. 17, section 7 of the EU treaty before posting...

Best regards
Thomas

KLDC10 wrote:

sabenapilot wrote:

Let me see: a group of elected politicians elect their next leader... I'd swear something very similar is happening right now in the UK, isn't it?

The only difference is in the EU this is done on a cross-party basis, so the next leaders can work with a stabe majority, both in number of people they represent as well as in number of seats they hold: might be a good idea to try it for the UK as well: it might have prevented the total political meltdown and complete national humiliation of the last 3 years…

Nope. Members of a political party are democratically electing their next leader, who will happen to become Prime Minister by virtue of his party's control of the House of Commons.

Nonsense. The President of the European Commission doesn't need to hold a majority of seats in the European Parliament. The latter is a glorified rubber stamp which just does as it is told, or can be ignored in the event that it doesn't. Real democracy can be messy at times, but you wouldn't recognise that, because you don't have it.

Yawn, here we go again. You now what? I can recognise that there is a true democracy, when trolls like you can just spit out this nonsense all around the internet without any repercussions whatsoever.

And the manure keeps flowing from the UK.

The bbc had the new terrorism sympathiser Brexit party MEP on at lunchtime. Going on about only 30 minutes attendance today. Her leader has the lowest attendance rate of anyone in Parliament.

Loew wrote:

Yawn, here we go again. You now what? I can recognise that there is a true democracy, when trolls like you can just spit out this nonsense all around the internet without any repercussions whatsoever.

People you don't agree with = Trolls who should be silenced.

Good to know where you stand on that. Orwellian.

KLDC10 wrote:

Loew wrote:

Yawn, here we go again. You now what? I can recognise that there is a true democracy, when trolls like you can just spit out this nonsense all around the internet without any repercussions whatsoever.

People you don't agree with = Trolls who should be silenced.

Good to know where you stand on that. Orwellian.

That is a rather desperate try to change the subject. You really need to read the manual better buddy.

Loew wrote:

That is a rather desperate try to change the subject. You really need to read the manual better buddy.

What "manual"? What in the world are you spluttering on about?

Klaus wrote:

A101 wrote:

Klaus wrote:

Individual member countries can talk to bordering Third Countries about how exactly to implement their border but whether or not to have one is a function of the differences between the EU and that Third Country and not at the discretion of an individual country.

Thanks for clarifying that position, so I take it Brussels would have also had to agree on the free movement of Irish citizens agreement between ROI/UK

That would have been much easier for everybody if the UK was in Schengen in the first place, making extra rules unnecessary.

Klaus wrote:

When your entire world view has shrunk down to just a bunch of conspiracy theories you're just blind to anything else.
.

No conspiracy theories just the knowledge that what happens behind the closed political doors is not always the same spin doctored to the media.

There is a difference between knowing about theoretical possibilities and fixed and adamant assumptions that the absolute worst theoretical possibility would definitely be real just because it was about the EU.

Klaus wrote:

Read the above linked article about the actual talks among EU members about the future borders with the UK – it is a completely different picture from those silly conspiracy theories.
.

Hasn’t anyone told don’t believe everything you read in the paper

It is quite reasonable and serious reporting without any noticeable bias or implausibility, quite the opposite of your own claims.

Klaus wrote:

New border and trade rules will be damaging and especially to Ireland, but while they're not rushing towards rolling out the barbed wire for very sound historical reasons, if and when the UK starts to diverge there will be a border with infrastructure. There's just no choice about it, both due to EU rules and due to WTO rules.

Partly correct, nothing in the WTO rules say you have to have a certain standard for a border in fact you don’t actually have to have one . There is no rule in the WTO requiring its member governments to secure their borders.

There is the rule that any other member of the WTO can sue any country which doesn't protect its borders and is thus undermining the WTO rules to the detriment of other members. And given the quite substantial resistance against UK proposals on the WTO level now, you can pretty much bet on such a violation turning into another WTO problem for the UK.

Where other WTO members might object is that WTO’s non-discrimination rules, particularly “most-favoured-nation” treatment (MFN), where say there are no trade obstacles with ROI but trade with AU will without a FTA, where’s as the UK can then apply for WTO article XXI security exceptions Due under the premise of keeping the peace.

You'll find that claim to be a lot harder to establish than apparently expected.

Klaus wrote:

At that point, the UK would have shot down the Good Friday Agreement and in the process would have done major (additional) damage to its reputation as a treaty partner

Once again show me what section the UK would be in violation.

The centerpiece of the GFA is the balancing of rights and opportunities between the Unionists (for unrestricted access to Britain) and the Republicans (for unrestricted access to the Republic of Ireland).

Brexit as envisaged by the ERG unilaterally specifically destroys just one half of that balance, namely the rights and opportunities to freely access the Republic of Ireland from Northern Ireland, thus destroying the entire internationally ratified Good Friday Agreement (guaranteed by the USA (at least whose Congress wouldn't stand for it) and by the European Union (ditto, all around)) and walking back the UK's given word in its creation, which would be a great start for any new international negotiations...

Thankfully we never joined Schengen. We like to know who and what comes in to our country (within reason).

Aesma wrote:

Oh I see.

I didn’t realise that the Brexit party wanted to do away with democracy and exterminate millions of people.

Your clever comparison reveals all.

Well, they want millions kicked out of the UK.

There’s also that Farage poster from the referendum.
https://www.google.com.hk/amp/s/amp.the ... f-migrants

noviorbis77 wrote:

Thankfully we never joined Schengen. We like to know who and what comes in to our country (within reason).

Yet, you glorious kingdom is full of immigrants, and you know jack squat. And that is only thanks to completely inept border force, which per your own words, you are a proud member of. British press reports as much as 70 000 illegal immigrants every year. So why don´t you go out to protect the border instead of spreading nonsense on this website. You know, do actual work instead of yapping.

Such a beautiful song by Beethoven co-opted by a bunch of unelected bureaucrats to be the anthem of a country that does not exist, but that they are trying to jam down everyone's throats. A shame, really.

BestWestern wrote:

Well, they want millions kicked out of the UK.

There’s also that Farage poster from the referendum.
https://www.google.com.hk/amp/s/amp.the ... f-migrants

can your source please that they want to kick millions out the UK?

Otherwise can you acknowledge this as made up and incorrect.

Loew wrote:

noviorbis77 wrote:

Thankfully we never joined Schengen. We like to know who and what comes in to our country (within reason).

Yet, you glorious kingdom is full of immigrants, and you know jack squat. And that is only thanks to completely inept border force, which per your own words, you are a proud member of. British press reports as much as 70 000 illegal immigrants every year. So why don´t you go out to protect the border instead of spreading nonsense on this website. You know, do actual work instead of yapping.

How are Border Force inept?

Please enlighten us all with your expert knowledge.

Aaand the next person nominated to lead the European Commission is... German Defence Secretary Ursula von der Leyen, a woman who is not an MEP. So much for all of that Spitzenkandidat guff in which we were promised that the next President would be selected from among the lead parliamentary candidates. They even held a debate between them: https://europeelects.eu/2019spitzenkandidaten/ ! The EU can't even get the illusion of democracy right.

Pyrex wrote:

Such a beautiful song by Beethoven co-opted by a bunch of unelected bureaucrats

The European Council consists exclusively of democratically elected national leaders.
The President of the Council is elected by the elected national leaders.
The President of the Commission is nominated by the elected national leaders and elected by the directly elected MEPs.
The President of the European Parliament is of course elected by the directly elected MEPs.

In short, you're completely and utterly clueless about how the EU actually works.

By the way, who elects your Hourse of Lords, again, and who your head of state? Just remind me!

to be the anthem of a country that does not exist,

The European Union very obviously is not a country but a supranational union of countries, as the name says on the tin.

And as each of our regional states has its own anthem below the national level, so does the European Union above it. I'm a citizen of all these levels (and of my local community) and once you actually know what's actually going on, that is perfectly in order.

but that they are trying to jam down everyone's throats. A shame, really.

The only thing rammed down your throat is a sticky, toxic clump of hateful propaganda uncomfortably reminiscent of the times before each of the two world wars.

KLDC10 wrote:

Aaand the next person nominated to lead the European Commission is... German Defence Secretary Ursula von der Leyen, a woman who is not an MEP. So much for all of that Spitzenkandidat guff in which we were promised that the next President would be selected from among the lead parliamentary candidates. They even held a debate between them: https://europeelects.eu/2019spitzenkandidaten/ ! The EU can't even get the illusion of democracy right.

She would be a very bad choice for a number of reasons (and her gender is not one of them).

And there your cluelessness strikes again: As explained above, it's the directly (and proportionally!) elected MEPs who have the decision now.

But it seems you don't recognize democracy even when it stares you in the face.

Klaus wrote:

She would be a very bad choice for a number of reasons (and her gender is not one of them).

And there your cluelessness strikes again: As explained above, it's the directly (and proportionally!) elected MEPs who have the decision now.

But it seems you don't recognize democracy even when it stares you in the face.

No. The entire European Election campaign was conducted under the auspices of the Spitzenkandidat system. We were told that the next President of the European Commission would be one of the lead candidates. Either Weber of the EPP, Timmermans of the S&D, or (long shot) maybe even Verhofstadt of ALDE. That would have meant that the next President would have been first elected to the Parliament.

However, this will not now be the case and the entire campaign has been revealed to have been based on a fundamental lie. It is not democracy. Not even close.

No. The Spitzenkandidat system was pushed by conservatives. The new elected forces were dead set against and succeeded. On a side note all four are fluent in french for a change

Olddog wrote:

No. The Spitzenkandidat system was pushed by conservatives. The new elected forces were dead set against and succeeded. On a side note all four are fluent in french for a change

It doesn’t matter who pushed for it, the Elections were conducted on that premise. They even sucked y’all in with that stupid TV debate. They’re taking you for fools and succeeding.

You are delusional. In france none conducted theses elections with that system in mind as it is totally alien to us for a proportional vote.

Olddog wrote:

You are delusional. In france none conducted theses elections with that system in mind as it is totally alien to us for a proportional vote.

Indeed. And EU isn't based on promise but on treaty, Thomas pointed the section already.

KLDC10 wrote:

No. The entire European Election campaign was conducted under the auspices of the Spitzenkandidat system. We were told that the next President of the European Commission would be one of the lead candidates. Either Weber of the EPP, Timmermans of the S&D, or (long shot) maybe even Verhofstadt of ALDE. That would have meant that the next President would have been first elected to the Parliament.

However, this will not now be the case and the entire campaign has been revealed to have been based on a fundamental lie. It is not democracy. Not even close.

And again you're demonstrating that you have no clue what democracy even means.

Hint: It doesn't mean that the most rabid fanatics just shout down everybody else and just by sheer force get whatever they want the way it's being played in the UK right now.

The European Elections first and foremost determined the seat distribution of MEPs among the running parties, and that has happened and that was an actually far more democratic process than any of the absurdly distorted national and local elections in the UK which have little to do with democracy given that routinely a majority of the votes is effectively thrown in the trash there and summarily ignored.

Back to the EU: The Spitzenkandidaten proposal had the same function as in german elections: If you want the leader of one of the main parties as chancellor, you should probably vote for that party, but you might also vote for one of the other parties likely to vote for that desired candidate in the Bundestag.

But there has never been any actual guarantee about that – the Spitzenkandidat might still not make it if – for instance – prospective coalition partners made it a precondition to have somebody else instead and the coalition was indeed formed on that basis. That Spitzenkandidaten-proposal is a statement of intent given by the respective party, but as we're seeing now, other parties may force that intent to change.

And that applies specifically to the EU leaders because an unwritten but still generally sensible rule is that the main posts of the EU should be as representative of the whole of Europe as possible, regarding a whole bunch of different factors such as country, region and country group of origin, gender and political affiliation.

It is good practice to balance out those main posts in a way that there is a decent democratic representation overall across President of the Council, President of the Commission, President of the Parliament, High Commissioner for Foreign Policy and head of the ECB.

Those compromises are not easy to achieve and if you knew anything, you'd probably be aware that the Parliament is anything but just rubber-stamping the proposals handed over by the Council of national leaders. This will get contentious and it is anything but certain that the original proposals will actually make it through the parliamentary process unscathed.

You know, the way actual democracy tends to work.

Emmanuel Macron made it very clear BEFORE the election that he was dead set against the Spitzenkandidat system.

If the EPP had won a large plurality, Weber might have made it, but the EPP doesn't even have 25% of the seats, and that's with mainly Eastern European countries on top of Germany.

Timmermans was acceptable and would have had enough votes, but these same Eastern European countries didn't like him.

Klaus wrote:

KLDC10 wrote:

No. The entire European Election campaign was conducted under the auspices of the Spitzenkandidat system. We were told that the next President of the European Commission would be one of the lead candidates. Either Weber of the EPP, Timmermans of the S&D, or (long shot) maybe even Verhofstadt of ALDE. That would have meant that the next President would have been first elected to the Parliament.

However, this will not now be the case and the entire campaign has been revealed to have been based on a fundamental lie. It is not democracy. Not even close.

And again you're demonstrating that you have no clue what democracy even means.

Hint: It doesn't mean that the most rabid fanatics just shout down everybody else and just by sheer force get whatever they want the way it's being played in the UK right now.

The European Elections first and foremost determined the seat distribution of MEPs among the running parties, and that has happened and that was an actually far more democratic process than any of the absurdly distorted national and local elections in the UK which have little to do with democracy given that routinely a majority of the votes is effectively thrown in the trash there and summarily ignored.

Back to the EU: The Spitzenkandidaten proposal had the same function as in german elections: If you want the leader of one of the main parties as chancellor, you should probably vote for that party, but you might also vote for one of the other parties likely to vote for that desired candidate in the Bundestag.

But there has never been any actual guarantee about that – the Spitzenkandidat might still not make it if – for instance – prospective coalition partners made it a precondition to have somebody else instead and the coalition was indeed formed on that basis. That Spitzenkandidaten-proposal is a statement of intent given by the respective party, but as we're seeing now, other parties may force that intent to change.

And that applies specifically to the EU leaders because an unwritten but still generally sensible rule is that the main posts of the EU should be as representative of the whole of Europe as possible, regarding a whole bunch of different factors such as country, region and country group of origin, gender and political affiliation.

It is good practice to balance out those main posts in a way that there is a decent democratic representation overall across President of the Council, President of the Commission, President of the Parliament, High Commissioner for Foreign Policy and head of the ECB.

Those compromises are not easy to achieve and if you knew anything, you'd probably be aware that the Parliament is anything but just rubber-stamping the proposals handed over by the Council of national leaders. This will get contentious and it is anything but certain that the original proposals will actually make it through the parliamentary process unscathed.

You know, the way actual democracy tends to work.

Indeed, let the EP vote on the proposed candidate for the EC Presidency, just as the treaty stipulates.
Will be quite interesting to see if Ursula von der Leyen can gather sufficient support: it's not a given at all, exactly as it should be in a proportional representative democracy.

I could see a scenario in which Frans Timmermans is nominated by the Netherlands as their Commissioner and subsequently confirmed as such by the EP as well as taking on the role VP in the EC again, all while the President-designate isn't confirmed by the EP...and then? Timmermans would be confirmed by the EP and legally appointed by the Commission itself, thus undoing the Visegrad4's objections. Still remember how Martin Selmayr became Secretary-General of the European Commission?

Meanwhile the loser risks again being the UK, because after having wasted more than half the extra Brexit time on its own internal quibbling and electing a new PM to renegotiate the WA, that new PM may find there's nobody to renegotiate with in Brussels!

BTW - congrats to my country's PM on becoming President of the European Council to succeed Donald Tusk!
He's already the second Belgian to hold this high office since it's creation about a decade ago.

sabenapilot wrote:

BTW - congrats to my country's PM on becoming President of the European Council to succeed Donald Tusk!
He's already the second Belgian to hold this high office since it's creation about a decade ago.

Oh yes, congratulations on his elevation to President of the European Council having seen his governing coalition break down and having comprehensively lost this year's Federal Election. Talk about a reward for failure.

KLDC10 wrote:

sabenapilot wrote:

BTW - congrats to my country's PM on becoming President of the European Council to succeed Donald Tusk!
He's already the second Belgian to hold this high office since it's creation about a decade ago.

Oh yes, congratulations on his elevation to President of the European Council having seen his governing coalition break down and having comprehensively lost this year's Federal Election. Talk about a reward for failure.

I'm sure the UK's turn could still come: BoJo may very well be our next EUCO Pres even!
After failing to take the UK out of Europe and losing the GE to Corbyn, that is.

sabenapilot wrote:

I'm sure the UK's turn could still come: BoJo may very well be our next EUCO Pres even!
After failing to take the UK out of Europe and losing the GE to Corbyn, that is.

Perish the thought! Although I'm not sure Corbyn could win an election - he'd have to actually take a position on something

KLDC10 wrote:

sabenapilot wrote:

BTW - congrats to my country's PM on becoming President of the European Council to succeed Donald Tusk!
He's already the second Belgian to hold this high office since it's creation about a decade ago.

Oh yes, congratulations on his elevation to President of the European Council having seen his governing coalition break down and having comprehensively lost this year's Federal Election. Talk about a reward for failure.

While you're apparently totally cool with Boris Johnson being elevated to PM by a tiny number of unelected mostly old white dudes after having been fired from multiple positions for lying on the job and then pushing the UK into the predicament it is now in, finally desperate enough to even consider him, of all people, to guard the nuclear codes!

You're really one to talk!

KLDC10 wrote:

sabenapilot wrote:

I'm sure the UK's turn could still come: BoJo may very well be our next EUCO Pres even!
After failing to take the UK out of Europe and losing the GE to Corbyn, that is.

Perish the thought! Although I'm not sure Corbyn could win an election - he'd have to actually take a position on something

Indeed, that would be silly.
On second thoughts, PM Vince Cable wouldn't mind sending a few Brexiteers to Brussels to reconnect with their roots.

KLDC10 wrote:

sabenapilot wrote:

I'm sure the UK's turn could still come: BoJo may very well be our next EUCO Pres even!
After failing to take the UK out of Europe and losing the GE to Corbyn, that is.

Perish the thought! Although I'm not sure Corbyn could win an election - he'd have to actually take a position on something

Yeah, he really needs to choose which colour the unicorns are supposed to be which you're absolutely certain to get because that is the only decision that really counts in the UK right now, isn't it?

Klaus wrote:

KLDC10 wrote:

sabenapilot wrote:

BTW - congrats to my country's PM on becoming President of the European Council to succeed Donald Tusk!
He's already the second Belgian to hold this high office since it's creation about a decade ago.

Oh yes, congratulations on his elevation to President of the European Council having seen his governing coalition break down and having comprehensively lost this year's Federal Election. Talk about a reward for failure.

While you're apparently totally cool with Boris Johnson being elevated to PM by a tiny number of unelected mostly old white dudes after having been fired from multiple positions for lying on the job and then pushing the UK into the predicament it is now in, finally desperate enough to even consider him, of all people, to guard the nuclear codes!

You're really one to talk!

What nuclear codes?
You mean the codes to launch warheads the UK has placed under NATO command, located near Brussels?
Contrary to that other nuclear armed European country, France, which does not delegate the sovereignty over its nuclear arsenal to a foreign supra-national organisation...
Oh, the irony!

I see someone shook the tree and woke a few more Brexiteers today. I was getting bored of the A101 show anyhow...

sabenapilot wrote:

Indeed, that would be silly. On second thoughts, PM Vince Cable wouldn't mind sending a few Brexiteers to Brussels to reconnect with their roots.

Well, he has resigned as well, although the Lib Dem leadership contest has been rather overshadowed by that of the Conservative Party.

sabenapilot wrote:

Klaus wrote:

KLDC10 wrote:

Oh yes, congratulations on his elevation to President of the European Council having seen his governing coalition break down and having comprehensively lost this year's Federal Election. Talk about a reward for failure.

While you're apparently totally cool with Boris Johnson being elevated to PM by a tiny number of unelected mostly old white dudes after having been fired from multiple positions for lying on the job and then pushing the UK into the predicament it is now in, finally desperate enough to even consider him, of all people, to guard the nuclear codes!

You're really one to talk!

What nuclear codes?
You mean the codes to launch warheads the UK has placed under NATO command, located near Brussels?
Contrary to that other nuclear armed European country, France, which does not delegate the sovereignty over its nuclear arsenal to a foreign supra-national organisation...
Oh, the irony!

There aren't any codes and the final responsibility lies with the PM. More details here if you are interested: https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/control ... r-weapons/

SomebodyInTLS wrote:

I see someone shook the tree and woke a few more Brexiteers today. I was getting bored of the A101 show anyhow...

I have other things to do most of the time