Discussion in 'News and Current Affairs' started by Yellow Fang, 30 Jun 2019.
So let's leave the EU.
I’ve just read that if BJ wins to be the next PM, elected by 0.1% of the electorate, he’s planning to send parliamentarians home for 2 weeks at the end of October to prevent them blocking a no deal.
Again, what was it you were saying about an un-democratic EU?
Just like the Brexit vote that you've spent 22 pages trying, and so far, failing, to defend.
Unfortunately that’s just another criticism, people can criticise as much they like but brexit needs a detailed real world plan containing the benefits as well as the costs & how to mitigate them. Are you suggesting the EU should copy the brexit party structure by becoming a company with an unelected head due to their being no members to vote for the leader and the unelected leader has complete unchallenged control over the whole party ?
If a choice of 1 is undemocratic, then so was the 2016 referendum.
Farage had a choice whether to vote for or against the candidate.
Voters in 2016 had a choice whether to vote for or against staying in the EU.
Both one choice.
You don't read what i'm saying not one word of it so what do i need to prove? I never said that the airline alliances had anything to do with th EU. I said that there are many other examples of aliances is response to an claim that international companies need something like the EU to efficiently work across nations. I understand that large companies ''ll go to an certain extent to prove these kind of statements as having a lobby in the eu makes them lazy. It also emboldens large companies at the cost of smaller and medium sized companies. Youtube can employ more then enough people to comply with all those silly content controlling rules. but would a startup let's call it ''smalltube'' just as easily? Surely not here you go a other example of why the EU is not working for normal people it does work great for big companies and failed politician's like ms von der Leyden, the succesor to Juncker that nobody knew or has voted for. In yet a other demonstration of ''the ever undemocratic union''
What has the uk of any other country to do with it? It about the EU not about the uk. Sure there is enough to say about what's not correct in the uk but why change the topic?
During the referendum, there where two choices, the vote of the people was the end result.
in this case the people where asked to vote, but the end result is a candidate who only came forward after a closed door meeting, how on earth can you compare those two?
If you want to word it like that, then this vote was also two choices: for or against Ursula von der Leyen.
The EU Parliament could have rejected the candidate by voting against.
Some voters. Imagine if they'd told the BXP Ltd they couldn't vote because they were UK migrants in the EU...
you're going to fast here, they also put a number off ''spitzencanidat'' members on the election roll. Just for laughs and giggles because none of them has actually been chosen. I think it is fundamentally wrong and misleading if you let people believe they have some influence only to show you sh*t on their opinions instead. That is what the EU has done here, again!
There is a valid argument to be made about the influence big business can have on national and international policy making. I would cite the VW debacle with the EU as a case in point. The EU response was tepid at best due to the fact that VW is a rather important company in Europe.
It does work both ways though with legislation. If the EU implements laws around copyright and content ownership that was being discussed then YouTube would have big problems simply because of its size and the review mechanisms that are inherent to the platform. A startup might be able to incorporate the legislation into the core of its platform and have a significant advantage over the big guys. Facebook is another case in point. The platform wasn't set up with privacy or managing damaging / false / violent / exploitative content. Therefore its size, ethos and platform architecture make it more difficult for it to change and adapt. New platforms can (and are) challenging these large platforms by designing for the situation now instead of the situation as was when FB started.
None of this, however, is a justification for Brexit. If you think the EU gets lobbied wait until our national government are having to make tough decisions....
Ms Von Der Leyden was nominated by the council (elected heads of the EU nations) and voted for by the EU Parliament which is directly elected by us. Yes, it was an unseemly nomination, a bit of a compromise and the complaints are valid. It isn't restricted to the EU though. In fact the EU process is significantly more democratic and open to scrutiny than many appointments made nationally for international appointments. Do you know who represents us at WTO level? UN level? Ambassadorial level? Because I don't! And we don't get a vote on these people either. Nor do we vote directly for a government cabinet minister either. Or even directly for PM. Nationally we simply get to vote for our MP and the party he or she represents. The rest is either decided by party members or the party executive.
Again, the EU is a flawed organisation. I am actually rather EU sceptic and pretty critical of it. But replacing something which can be a bit shoot by something that is shaping up to be an utter clusterfark cannot be deemed to be progress.
Care to translate that into English as per forum rules.
vd Leyen is the head of the EU civil service. In the UK that's not a position that has any democratic oversight whatsoever. I'd bet no-one on this thread could even name the vd Leyen equivalent.
Mark Sedwill to save the you the googling.
Separate names with a comma.