the EU council (all elected heads-of Government or State) proposed a candidate to the directly elected European Parliament: parliament is free can decline this candidate and then a new proposal needs to be made by the council who's having the right of initiative..
I remember that in the UK, there's currently an election going on in where a bunch of MPs only got to select 2 leadership candidates who're then presented to party members only for final elimination…one of both is certainly going to become the country's next PM, all without vote any by the public, be it directly or indirectly.
I wouldn't be so sure which of the 2 is most democratic in fact...
Neither if you ask me, though in the case of the latter at least members of the public get the opportunity to vote if they are already paid up members of the party in question; however some parties have rules in place such as having to be a member for x amount of months before being entitled to vote to avoid entryism influencing the contest. That said, Ed Miliband's reforms and introducing the £3 supporter tier that gave anyone the right to vote in Labour leadership elections is often cited as one reason why Corbyn is now leader and why they frantically changed it to £25 one year later.
I appreciate you pointing out the (deliberate) ambiguity in the wording (highlighted by several journalists), but an "opportunity to negotiate its own WA" really can't happen as a) there's no time and b) the EU has already made it very, very clear that that won't happen - so in the real world Labour has finally switched to supporting another referendum and backing remain (as I thought it would following Tom Watson's speech a few weeks ago).
Yes. Hence why I started the scenario with the words "what if", because from where I'm sitting Labour are just a deluded as some of the Tory leadership candidates if they think they can make substantial changes.
So, it looks like a lot of hot air continues from the UK politicians, maybe that is why the record temperatures in Europe.
I don't know. The recent way of nominating a successor to Jean-Claude Juncker by ignoring candidates from the spitzenkandidaten process because the Council couldn't agree in favour of a compromise candidate from outside the process probably didn't help.
It makes the case for these sort of roles to be directly elected and, frankly, plays into the hands of those who accuse the EU of being undemocratic, but that's by the by.
I don't get the UK's obsession with the selection process... this kind of horse-trading by proposing/debating/selecting/endorsing is part of any coalition building and is FAR more "democratic" than the UK's current PM selection process. All the people involved have been directly elected, and then - acting as representatives of the people - they choose from among themselves the most suitable to represent parliament overall. All seems quite sensible to me.
So essentially the debates between the spitzenkandidates and broadcasted prior to the elections are/were a waste of time and money then given that none of them have been nominated? I say this as someone who's in favour of televised debates, though I accept the arithmetic following the elections made it a less-than-straightforward path.
It would have been nice if the groupings the parties are aligned with were stated on the ballot paper so people knew exactly what they were voting for, as I don't recall seeing these on the ballot papers I was sent and my knowledge of which group each party is in is down to my own research. I can't speak for other countries so I'm open to being educated, but the problem you have here (and it's something I have mentioned in one of these threads before) is in the UK at least there is a lack of common knowledge over how the process works, what groupings exist and which ones our political parties sit in - all of this is on top of other lack of general knowledge over how the EU works and how the public are enjoying the benefits. Whether this is deliberate misreporting on the media's part or otherwise I don't know, but the reality here is that the more clued up ones are generally those who have taken the time to do their own research. I'm convinced if there was more public knowledge about the positives and more efforts made to increase engagement, the result 3 years ago would be different.
Please remember, I'm looking at how things can be improved, it's not an obsession on my part. None of which is relevant to the current Tory party leadership contest and, as I said above, I don't particularly think either case can claim to be more democratic over the other.
If you think the current system is fine and nothing needs changing, that's your prerogative. However, don't be surprised if others criticise the overlooking of the spitzenkandidates if it happens again.
However, as the article points out, the unknown at this stage is what if there's an election, Labour gain power (whether it's majority, minority or in coalition with/support of others) and has the opportunity to negotiate its own withdrawal agreement? Or is the policy to hold a second referendum and back remain only applicable for as long as the Tories are in power and they must therefore oppose anything they come up with by default? If the latter, it just goes to show they're not interested in putting what's best for the country first and shows they have no credibility on the issue.
According to my information the new Labour position is this:
• Labour pushes for a confirmatory referendum in any case
• For such a referendum, Labour will campaign for Remain
against no deal
and against the Tory-negotiated Withdrawal Agreement
• Even if Labour should get into government and if they should succeed in negotiating a different WA, they would still
put that to a referendum (and only in that purely hypothetical, practically mythical
case they reserve the option to campaign for their own unicorn WA instead of outright Remain
So for all practical (and even just halfway realistic) purposes, Labour has now decided to definitely
support a "second referendum" and as long as the Tories are in power also to campaign for Remain
Now that was a lengthy and difficult birth, and there are prettier babies, too...!
You'll upset Corbynista's by claiming their policies are ugly.
So basically Labour are now remain for as long as they are in opposition (because it's the opposite to what the Tories want to do), but will switch back to leave if they somehow get into power because they think that a Brexit on their own terms is better. I can't help but think this is a short-term, populist stance because of the support they've haemorraghed to the likes of the Lib Dems and the Greens who are clear for what they stand for on Brexit and because the trade unions are now telling Labour to align with their stance of second referendum and remain, as well as the likes of McDonnell and Watson constantly going public about the need to switch to second referendum and remain (McDonnell in particular because I don't think the Corbyn cult will go as far as attempting to deselect Corbyn's closest ally because he's dancing to a different tune on Brexit, plus Watson as Deputy Leader has his own mandate so can't be deposed easily).
As a remainer, it's not making me any more likely to want to support them. It's also why they're not fit for power anytime soon because they don't have a credible plan for the single biggest issue of the day if they got in to power. Simply stating what they will do for as long as the Tories are in power won't cut it and I doubt it will lead to voters flocking back to them in their droves, particularly remainers who voted Lib Dem or Greens or even SNP if in Scotland.
Actually labour doesn't have red lines and wants a custom union and close alignment with the single market. The EU would definitely be open to that. The only problem is that it's basically the same thing as remaining, and any amount of negotiation would make that clear.
It could be described as "BRINO" (Brexit in Name Only). Is being in a customs union compatible with EEA membership (as that would probably be the option offered if no Schengen like with EFTA)? It would also still involve having to pay in but not getting as much out as we do now as full members.