Do we know what's the difference between "Blancs" and "Nuls", they can't have 15% spoiled ballots can they?
if it really is 15% abstenteeism that is bad news for Macron.
Not really, L'Outre Mer had very poor turnout. St Seine Denis is lowest turnout so far today and a strong Melenchon area. The population here is poor, so one would expect absentee ballots to be higher than the France mainland.
Thread title reminds me of when Harman railed against women being called 'love'. Did make me wonder if she'd ever heard of Yorkshire.
On the thread itself, surely this is because ideological belief in the EU is a priori? They have a belief ('more Europe' = better), and stick to it. It's not reasoned. If it were, they'd examine the evidence and reach a conclusion as per science. But because it's faith, ideology, over sceptical reason, they already know the answer.
When you already know the truth, dissent is heresy.
Mr. Urquhart, same happened to me, fortunately I'd copied the above.
An interesting phenomenon is religious style belief in various "creeds", mirroring the decline in traditional religion.
For example, try having an evidence based discussion of the merits of various types of recycling. Pointing out the trees that paper are made from are farmed, and that unless you are quite careful, you end up spending far more energy and chemicals on making recycled paper, gets you labeled as a "bad" person.
Similarly with carbon footprint of food. Bad to import food from New Zealand because of fuel and refrigeration to get it here. OK to use fertilizers and fuel-intensive farming techniques here because it's 'locally farmed'.
An excellent thread header (ie I agree with almost all of it).
However, the EU appear to have given up on Britain as a constructive partner for the time being (to be fair, they have had ample cause to do so), so they feel free to indulge their prejudices. This is bad news for the EU and bad news for Britain.
There is a school of thought that the Juncker leak was all about letting German voters know just how poorly prepared the British are so that when talks do break down German voters will not blame Merkel or the EU generally.
I am not sure that having fundamental disagreements on substance and refusal to be bullied or blackmailed is evidence of lack of preparation.
Allowing herself to be wound-up by a washed-out, powerless drunk from Luxembourg who will have almost no role in the negotiations does not augur well for the times when our PM has to meet serious and powerful players from the EU. Toy throwing and baseless accusations might win elections, but they rarely deliver good agreements.
Perhaps someone in the EU could take Juncker to one side and inform him he is powerless?
The shock might kill him. Or his laughing fit.
He gets to run the Commission, which does as it is told by the Council of Ministers. Lots of nice lunches with important people though.
How very sophisticated and blase that summary sounds. I doubt it is true: he seems to get lots of air time and an important title. I think this is another example of Remainer snobbery: the little people might think that the President of the EC was an important position, just as they might think that accession negotiations were about negotiating accession, but the elite knows better.
And the less important he in reality is, the greater the puzzlement that he has not been forcibly retired by whoever is important enough to remove him. It is only the black swan event of Trump which saves him from being the most embarrassing arsehole currently on the world stage.
Yep, you know me: a fully paid up member of the elite :-D
The Commission implements policy, it does not decide it. That's the way it works. The real power in the EU lies with the Council of Ministers and, to a lesser extent, with some of the individual DGs, which get to interpret policy on a day to day basis: DG Competition, for example.
An excellent thread header (ie I agree with almost all of it).
However, the EU appear to have given up on Britain as a constructive partner for the time being (to be fair, they have had ample cause to do so), so they feel free to indulge their prejudices. This is bad news for the EU and bad news for Britain.
There is a school of thought that the Juncker leak was all about letting German voters know just how poorly prepared the British are so that when talks do break down German voters will not blame Merkel or the EU generally.
I am not sure that having fundamental disagreements on substance and refusal to be bullied or blackmailed is evidence of lack of preparation.
No, it's not. But an absence of any signs of being prepared may well be.
As my comment got eaten at the start of the thread. Minor site suggestion.
Would it be possible to put in a hide / reveal toggle for the header articles. Much that I appreciate the articles and always read them, when viewing on mobile if you then want to interact with the comments it can be a real pain to have to scroll through all of the articles each time you do a page refresh.
"It is fine for a German politician to tweet that “The British government must abandon myth that all British will be better off post-Brexit.” More fruitful might be to abandon the myth that all British were better off before Brexit and, indeed, that all Europeans are better off as a result of the EU’s decisions in recent years."
This interests me in terms of how we define "better off". It could mean less tax, it might mean shorter waiting lists, higher interest rates, more jobs etc etc. Everybody has their own idea of what it means, it is impossible that everybody is "better off".
Indeed. If you believe in Maslow's hierarchy of needs, once the physiological and security needs are met, then being 'better off' has very little to do with economics.
Allowing herself to be wound-up by a washed-out, powerless drunk from Luxembourg who will have almost no role in the negotiations does not augur well for the times when our PM has to meet serious and powerful players from the EU. Toy throwing and baseless accusations might win elections, but they rarely deliver good agreements.
Perhaps someone in the EU could take Juncker to one side and inform him he is powerless?
The shock might kill him. Or his laughing fit.
He gets to run the Commission, which does as it is told by the Council of Ministers. Lots of nice lunches with important people though.
How very sophisticated and blase that summary sounds. I doubt it is true: he seems to get lots of air time and an important title. I think this is another example of Remainer snobbery: the little people might think that the President of the EC was an important position, just as they might think that accession negotiations were about negotiating accession, but the elite knows better.
And the less important he in reality is, the greater the puzzlement that he has not been forcibly retired by whoever is important enough to remove him. It is only the black swan event of Trump which saves him from being the most embarrassing arsehole currently on the world stage.
Indeed. The European Commission is the most important of the EU bodies when it comes to the content and enforcement of EU legislation. Those people who smugly say that "we have an elected European Parliament" or "it's the Heads of Government that decide policies" cannot have given serious consideration to how the EU works.
It is the EC which initiates new legislation and holds the power to repeal existing (rarely exercised). It is the EC which holds the pen on the drafting of legislation. It is the EC which has nearly all the technical experts, a huge institutional advantage. It is the EC which is the focus of lobbying efforts by industry and others.
I have worked in industry affected by EU legislation. Believe me, when an EC official walks into the room he is accorded respect and carries authority that in the UK would be reserved for the head of an elected MP like the Chair of a Commons Select Committee. And the lobbyists cluster around the Berlaymont building on the Schuman roundabout because they know that is where power lies.
Allowing herself to be wound-up by a washed-out, powerless drunk from Luxembourg who will have almost no role in the negotiations does not augur well for the times when our PM has to meet serious and powerful players from the EU. Toy throwing and baseless accusations might win elections, but they rarely deliver good agreements.
Perhaps someone in the EU could take Juncker to one side and inform him he is powerless?
The shock might kill him. Or his laughing fit.
He gets to run the Commission, which does as it is told by the Council of Ministers. Lots of nice lunches with important people though.
How very sophisticated and blase that summary sounds. I doubt it is true: he seems to get lots of air time and an important title. I think this is another example of Remainer snobbery: the little people might think that the President of the EC was an important position, just as they might think that accession negotiations were about negotiating accession, but the elite knows better.
And the less important he in reality is, the greater the puzzlement that he has not been forcibly retired by whoever is important enough to remove him. It is only the black swan event of Trump which saves him from being the most embarrassing arsehole currently on the world stage.
Yep, you know me: a fully paid up member of the elite :-D
The Commission implements policy, it does not decide it. That's the way it works. The real power in the EU lies with the Council of Ministers and, to a lesser extent, with some of the individual DGs, which get to interpret policy on a day to day basis: DG Competition, for example.
Wrong. The Commission has the power of initiative. In effect, it sets the agenda on all issues except at the very highest of levels.
What this means is that most regulations pass without any input at all from the Council.
Why is Sam Billings keeping wicket in the cricket and not Bairstow?
So management can have a look at Billings who's done so well in the IPL. Also so he can get as much pitch-time as possible before the Champions Trophy when he will be back-up for wicketkeeper-batters, Bairstow and Buttler.
Do we know what's the difference between "Blancs" and "Nuls", they can't have 15% spoiled ballots can they?
if it really is 15% abstenteeism that is bad news for Macron.
It really isn't. That is exactly what all the polls are already factoring in. The largest share of both Fillon and Melenchon supporters say they will abstain.
Ed Miliband's 'grass roots' mowing picture was just a PR stunt, angry homeowner claims
Photos of Ed Miliband helping a voter mow her lawn as he campaigned in the local elections were "set up" by his team, the "angry" constituent has claimed.
However, the voter has suggested she had to help Mr Miliband start the machine and that she had originally believed he was a Jehovah's Witness.
Ed Miliband's 'grass roots' mowing picture was just a PR stunt, angry homeowner claims
Photos of Ed Miliband helping a voter mow her lawn as he campaigned in the local elections were "set up" by his team, the "angry" constituent has claimed.
However, the voter has suggested she had to help Mr Miliband start the machine and that she had originally believed he was a Jehovah's Witness.
An excellent thread header (ie I agree with almost all of it).
However, the EU appear to have given up on Britain as a constructive partner for the time being (to be fair, they have had ample cause to do so), so they feel free to indulge their prejudices. This is bad news for the EU and bad news for Britain.
There is a school of thought that the Juncker leak was all about letting German voters know just how poorly prepared the British are so that when talks do break down German voters will not blame Merkel or the EU generally.
I am not sure that having fundamental disagreements on substance and refusal to be bullied or blackmailed is evidence of lack of preparation.
No, it's not. But an absence of any signs of being prepared may well be.
That washed-out, powerless drunk from Luxembourg seems to be taking control of all the banks in Europe, though, and intends to have oversight over non EU banks too. So perhaps he is not so washed-out.
There is a pattern where agreements with the EU have been made - and at the last minute are torn up and fresh demands are made by Brussels. I think the efforts to bail out some Italian banks show this, the Italian government has been treated with contempt.
Really? What has happened with the Italian banks that you are concerned about?
Allowing herself to be wound-up by a washed-out, powerless drunk from Luxembourg who will have almost no role in the negotiations does not augur well for the times when our PM has to meet serious and powerful players from the EU. Toy throwing and baseless accusations might win elections, but they rarely deliver good agreements.
Perhaps someone in the EU could take Juncker to one side and inform him he is powerless?
The shock might kill him. Or his laughing fit.
He gets to run the Commission, which does as it is told by the Council of Ministers. Lots of nice lunches with important people though.
How very sophisticated and blase that summary sounds. I doubt it is true: he seems to get lots of air time and an important title. I think this is another example of Remainer snobbery: the little people might think that the President of the EC was an important position, just as they might think that accession negotiations were about negotiating accession, but the elite knows better.
And the less important he in reality is, the greater the puzzlement that he has not been forcibly retired by whoever is important enough to remove him. It is only the black swan event of Trump which saves him from being the most embarrassing arsehole currently on the world stage.
Indeed. The European Commission is the most important of the EU bodies when it comes to the content and enforcement of EU legislation. Those people who smugly say that "we have an elected European Parliament" or "it's the Heads of Government that decide policies" cannot have given serious consideration to how the EU works.
It is the EC which initiates new legislation and holds the power to repeal existing (rarely exercised). It is the EC which holds the pen on the drafting of legislation. It is the EC which has nearly all the technical experts, a huge institutional advantage. It is the EC which is the focus of lobbying efforts by industry and others.
I have worked in industry affected by EU legislation. Believe me, when an EC official walks into the room he is accorded respect and carries authority that in the UK would be reserved for the head of an elected MP like the Chair of a Commons Select Committee. And the lobbyists cluster around the Berlaymont building on the Schuman roundabout because they know that is where power lies.
The Commission is the EU's civil service. Its only powers relate to implementation. The head of the Commission is powerful in the way that the head of the UK civil service is powerful. He can do nothing that goes against the wishes of the Council of Ministers.
As my comment got eaten at the start of the thread. Minor site suggestion.
Would it be possible to put in a hide / reveal toggle for the header articles. Much that I appreciate the articles and always read them, when viewing on mobile if you then want to interact with the comments it can be a real pain to have to scroll through all of the articles each time you do a page refresh.
Ed Miliband's 'grass roots' mowing picture was just a PR stunt, angry homeowner claims
Photos of Ed Miliband helping a voter mow her lawn as he campaigned in the local elections were "set up" by his team, the "angry" constituent has claimed.
However, the voter has suggested she had to help Mr Miliband start the machine and that she had originally believed he was a Jehovah's Witness.
Allowing herself to be wound-up by a washed-out, powerless drunk from Luxembourg who will have almost no role in the negotiations does not augur well for the times when our PM has to meet serious and powerful players from the EU. Toy throwing and baseless accusations might win elections, but they rarely deliver good agreements.
Perhaps someone in the EU could take Juncker to one side and inform him he is powerless?
The shock might kill him. Or his laughing fit.
He gets to run the Commission, which does as it is told by the Council of Ministers. Lots of nice lunches with important people though.
How very sophisticated and blase that summary sounds. I doubt it is true: he seems to get lots of air time and an important title. I think this is another example of Remainer snobbery: the little people might think that the President of the EC was an important position, just as they might think that accession negotiations were about negotiating accession, but the elite knows better.
And the less important he in reality is, the greater the puzzlement that he has not been forcibly retired by whoever is important enough to remove him. It is only the black swan event of Trump which saves him from being the most embarrassing arsehole currently on the world stage.
Yep, you know me: a fully paid up member of the elite :-D
The Commission implements policy, it does not decide it. That's the way it works. The real power in the EU lies with the Council of Ministers and, to a lesser extent, with some of the individual DGs, which get to interpret policy on a day to day basis: DG Competition, for example.
Wrong. The Commission has the power of initiative. In effect, it sets the agenda on all issues except at the very highest of levels.
What this means is that most regulations pass without any input at all from the Council.
The Commission can do nothing that the Council does not want it to do.
The head of the Commission is powerful in the way that the head of the UK civil service is powerful. He can do nothing that goes against the wishes of the Council of Ministers.
First, you are simply wrong. The head of the Commission has way more powers than any UK civil servant. Second, 'He can do nothing that goes against the wishes of the Council of Ministers' leaves an awful lot of room for action, some of which may ultimately end up counter to the wishes of a majority in the Council, simply as the Council does not have enough CPU time to monitor all the Commission does.
Thread title reminds me of when Harman railed against women being called 'love'. Did make me wonder if she'd ever heard of Yorkshire.
On the thread itself, surely this is because ideological belief in the EU is a priori? They have a belief ('more Europe' = better), and stick to it. It's not reasoned. If it were, they'd examine the evidence and reach a conclusion as per science. But because it's faith, ideology, over sceptical reason, they already know the answer.
When you already know the truth, dissent is heresy.
Mr. Urquhart, same happened to me, fortunately I'd copied the above.
An interesting phenomenon is religious style belief in various "creeds", mirroring the decline in traditional religion.
For example, try having an evidence based discussion of the merits of various types of recycling. Pointing out the trees that paper are made from are farmed, and that unless you are quite careful, you end up spending far more energy and chemicals on making recycled paper, gets you labeled as a "bad" person.
Similarly with carbon footprint of food. Bad to import food from New Zealand because of fuel and refrigeration to get it here. OK to use fertilizers and fuel-intensive farming techniques here because it's 'locally farmed'.
One problem with "environmental" arguments is getting people to understand scale and replacement effects.
The head of the Commission is powerful in the way that the head of the UK civil service is powerful. He can do nothing that goes against the wishes of the Council of Ministers.
First, you are simply wrong. The head of the Commission has way more powers than any UK civil servant. Second, 'He can do nothing that goes against the wishes of the Council of Ministers' leaves an awful lot of room for action, some of which may ultimately end up counter to the wishes of a majority in the Council, simply as the Council does not have enough CPU time to monitor all the Commission does.
In theory, a UK Civil servant cannot go against the wishes of the Minister of his department. Compare that theory to the memoirs of politicians from all parties - they are full of accounts of how the "system" has it's own policies and carries them out.
Thread title reminds me of when Harman railed against women being called 'love'. Did make me wonder if she'd ever heard of Yorkshire.
On the thread itself, surely this is because ideological belief in the EU is a priori? They have a belief ('more Europe' = better), and stick to it. It's not reasoned. If it were, they'd examine the evidence and reach a conclusion as per science. But because it's faith, ideology, over sceptical reason, they already know the answer.
When you already know the truth, dissent is heresy.
Mr. Urquhart, same happened to me, fortunately I'd copied the above.
An interesting phenomenon is religious style belief in various "creeds", mirroring the decline in traditional religion.
For example, try having an evidence based discussion of the merits of various types of recycling. Pointing out the trees that paper are made from are farmed, and that unless you are quite careful, you end up spending far more energy and chemicals on making recycled paper, gets you labeled as a "bad" person.
Similarly with carbon footprint of food. Bad to import food from New Zealand because of fuel and refrigeration to get it here. OK to use fertilizers and fuel-intensive farming techniques here because it's 'locally farmed'.
One problem with "environmental" arguments is getting people to understand scale and replacement effects.
Yep. Whole life cycle accounting is an alien concept. And who thinks to include the carbon footprint contribution of the industries used to subsidize green policies?
I watched an hour or so of the European Parliament yesterday. A Spanish professor spoke a lot of practical sense about WHAT the EU needed to do. Unfortunately, it was followed by Michel Barmier with the usual la-la-la, we're not listening, we must punish the traitorous sons of Albion.
Sad, really. The Chuckle Brothers (Juncker and Barnier) have the self-awareness and intransigence of Jeremy Corbyn without his intelligence (yes, I know).
(1) Does EU Law guarantee an absolute right to move and reside anywhere in the EU?
No. Treaty rights of free movement are subject to limitations.
Article 45(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (hereinafter: TFEU) states that the rights to (a) accept offers of employment, (b) move freely between States to take up employment, (c) reside in other Member States, and (d) the right to stay in another Member State after employment has finished, are subject to ‘limitations justified on grounds of public policy, public security or public health’. This means, to simplify, that national authorities can adopt restrictive measures on a case-by-case basis against EU workers on any of these three grounds.
Sounds as if the problem is that the UK government hasn't bothered to read the treaties it signed.
The head of the Commission is powerful in the way that the head of the UK civil service is powerful. He can do nothing that goes against the wishes of the Council of Ministers.
First, you are simply wrong. The head of the Commission has way more powers than any UK civil servant. Second, 'He can do nothing that goes against the wishes of the Council of Ministers' leaves an awful lot of room for action, some of which may ultimately end up counter to the wishes of a majority in the Council, simply as the Council does not have enough CPU time to monitor all the Commission does.
So, exactly the same as ministers and the civil service in the UK. Have you never heard of the Blob?
(1) Does EU Law guarantee an absolute right to move and reside anywhere in the EU?
No. Treaty rights of free movement are subject to limitations.
Article 45(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (hereinafter: TFEU) states that the rights to (a) accept offers of employment, (b) move freely between States to take up employment, (c) reside in other Member States, and (d) the right to stay in another Member State after employment has finished, are subject to ‘limitations justified on grounds of public policy, public security or public health’. This means, to simplify, that national authorities can adopt restrictive measures on a case-by-case basis against EU workers on any of these three grounds.
Sounds as if the problem is that the UK government hasn't bothered to read the treaties it signed.
Benefit rules have caught up. EU citizens can no longer claim benefits unless they are generally resident in this country and actually looking for work.
I have worked in industry affected by EU legislation. Believe me, when an EC official walks into the room he is accorded respect and carries authority that in the UK would be reserved for the head of an elected MP like the Chair of a Commons Select Committee. And the lobbyists cluster around the Berlaymont building on the Schuman roundabout because they know that is where power lies.
I have worked in such industries too, and that accords exactly with my own experience, and was probably the most powerful personal reason in my voting Leave.
I would only add that it's not just industry and lobbyists which think that way - officials and politicians from the Member States and extra-EU officials do too.
The Council can, in theory, and occasionally in practice, make life difficult for the Commission, but in practice the Commission will get its own way. The sheer volume of work will swamp the Council; the Commission has the staff and most of the experts; there is a strong incentive not to be seen to be anti-Communitaire; and most of the members of the Council are likely to go native after a while anyway.
An excellent thread header (ie I agree with almost all of it).
However, the EU appear to have given up on Britain as a constructive partner for the time being (to be fair, they have had ample cause to do so), so they feel free to indulge their prejudices. This is bad news for the EU and bad news for Britain.
Correct. in principle I'd like the negotiations to have a satisfactory result for all sides. But on the basis of the British approach so far, the appropriate European response is "Go away, have your election, and come baqck when you've stopped posturing." Juncker's and Merkel's comment seem fair enough in the circs.
(1) Does EU Law guarantee an absolute right to move and reside anywhere in the EU?
No. Treaty rights of free movement are subject to limitations.
Article 45(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (hereinafter: TFEU) states that the rights to (a) accept offers of employment, (b) move freely between States to take up employment, (c) reside in other Member States, and (d) the right to stay in another Member State after employment has finished, are subject to ‘limitations justified on grounds of public policy, public security or public health’. This means, to simplify, that national authorities can adopt restrictive measures on a case-by-case basis against EU workers on any of these three grounds.
Sounds as if the problem is that the UK government hasn't bothered to read the treaties it signed.
That is only on an individual basis. It cannot, for example, be used to justify limiting the right to work as a matter of general policy. And each individual case would be subject to a decision by he ECJ.
(1) Does EU Law guarantee an absolute right to move and reside anywhere in the EU?
No. Treaty rights of free movement are subject to limitations.
Article 45(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (hereinafter: TFEU) states that the rights to (a) accept offers of employment, (b) move freely between States to take up employment, (c) reside in other Member States, and (d) the right to stay in another Member State after employment has finished, are subject to ‘limitations justified on grounds of public policy, public security or public health’. This means, to simplify, that national authorities can adopt restrictive measures on a case-by-case basis against EU workers on any of these three grounds.
Sounds as if the problem is that the UK government hasn't bothered to read the treaties it signed.
That is only on an individual basis. It cannot, for example, be used to justify limiting the right to work as a matter of general policy. And each individual case would be subject to a decision by he ECJ.
All of those limitations have been severely weakened by the (post-Maastricht) ECJ jurisprudence on Article 20 and the right to non-discrimination.
As always, an excellent and well written thread header from Ms Cyclefree. My only comment being that Mme Le Pen has gotten to (say) 38% in the second round by ditching many of the historic policies of the FN, and going all Kirchner on us. I suspect if you surveyed the people in the vast majority of developed countries and asked questions like: do you think the government policies should look to protect and nurture national businesses? do think firms outsource too much to low cost countries? etc., then you'd see a similar level of support everywhere. Heck, Donald Trump just got elected on a Kirchner-esque platform.
The real tragedy of European politics is that the bulk of Eurosceptics are unsuitable for office. Geert Wilders is a total nut job. Berlusconi makes Fillon look like a model of probity. And Mme Le Pen represents a party that said as recently as 2009 that the Holocaust was a mere "detail" of history.
If they were fit for office, they would be portrayed as unfit anyway.
I think we're all grown up enough to make our own judgements.
Alan Johnson recalls his time as health secretary under former prime minister Gordon Brown.
He says one morning Mr Brown was half listening to Radio 4's Today when he heard Alan Johnson would be interviewed in the prime 08:10 slot.
"There were no announcements on health to be made, no emergencies to respond to. What was I playing at, Gordon demanded to know. Was this insubordination? Spontaneity? A leadership bid?" Mr Johnson wrote.
After a number of "frantic" calls between the BBC and Alan Johnson's media adviser at the time, Chris Norton, they were able to explain the situation to Downing Street.
BBC correspondent Alan Johnston was being interviewed on the programme about his kidnap ordeal in Gaza where he was held captive for 114 days.
An excellent thread header (ie I agree with almost all of it).
However, the EU appear to have given up on Britain as a constructive partner for the time being (to be fair, they have had ample cause to do so), so they feel free to indulge their prejudices. This is bad news for the EU and bad news for Britain.
Correct. in principle I'd like the negotiations to have a satisfactory result for all sides. But on the basis of the British approach so far, the appropriate European response is "Go away, have your election, and come baqck when you've stopped posturing." Juncker's and Merkel's comment seem fair enough in the circs.
Though post election reshuffle, French assembly elections, the summer break then September German elections eat up a lot of remaining time this year. Expect some posturing for a while yet, then Italian elections next spring. Time is ticking away to WTO hard Brexit.
BBC now reporting on Ed Miliband's fake news story. Awkward. The quote is a absolute killer. Not only fake, but Ed living up to his reputation of being bloody useless.
"He couldn't start the machine, I had to help him," the paper quotes her as saying.
"It was rubbish. I'm not even a Labour supporter. If it had been David Miliband it would have been absolutely fine."
One problem with "environmental" arguments is getting people to understand scale and replacement effects.
Yep. Whole life cycle accounting is an alien concept. And who thinks to include the carbon footprint contribution of the industries used to subsidize green policies?
Reducing cement production in the UK because it is environmentally unfriendly, uses a lot of power and generates a lot of CO2, and then importing cement from China where is is produced less enviromentally soundly, and less efficiently, and then add on the costs of transporting a heavy bulky product around the world.
Similarly energy tarrifs on high power consumption industies like steel or aluminium smelting, forcing them off shore where the same or more power is used, and then add on the costs to import.
Allowing herself to be wound-up by a washed-out, powerless drunk from Luxembourg who will have almost no role in the negotiations does not augur well for the times when our PM has to meet serious and powerful players from the EU. Toy throwing and baseless accusations might win elections, but they rarely deliver good agreements.
Perhaps someone in the EU could take Juncker to one side and inform him he is powerless?
The shock might kill him. Or his laughing fit.
He gets to run the Commission, which does as it is told by the Council of Ministers. Lots of nice lunches with important people though.
How very sophisticated and blase that summary sounds. I doubt it is true: he seems to get lots of air time and an important title. I think this is another example of Remainer snobbery: the little people might think that the President of the EC was an important position, just as they might think that accession negotiations were about negotiating accession, but the elite knows better.
And the less important he in reality is, the greater the puzzlement that he has not been forcibly retired by whoever is important enough to remove him. It is only the black swan event of Trump which saves him from being the most embarrassing arsehole currently on the world stage.
Yep, you know me: a fully paid up member of the elite :-D
The Commission implements policy, it does not decide it. That's the way it works. The real power in the EU lies with the Council of Ministers and, to a lesser extent, with some of the individual DGs, which get to interpret policy on a day to day basis: DG Competition, for example.
Wrong. The Commission has the power of initiative. In effect, it sets the agenda on all issues except at the very highest of levels.
What this means is that most regulations pass without any input at all from the Council.
The Commission can do nothing that the Council does not want it to do.
Completely wrong. Under the Lisbon Treaty the Commission derives its power from the Treaties not from the Council. It is subject to rulings on interpretation by the ECJ and cannot make decisions on certain areas reserved for the Council such as foreign policy but for the majority of the daily decisions made by the EU it is answerable to the ECJ not the Council. If the Council wishes to object to or prevent a Commission decision it has to get a ruling from the ECJ to do so.
Executive power over the EU as a whole is held by the Commission not the Council.
(1) Does EU Law guarantee an absolute right to move and reside anywhere in the EU?
No. Treaty rights of free movement are subject to limitations.
Article 45(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (hereinafter: TFEU) states that the rights to (a) accept offers of employment, (b) move freely between States to take up employment, (c) reside in other Member States, and (d) the right to stay in another Member State after employment has finished, are subject to ‘limitations justified on grounds of public policy, public security or public health’. This means, to simplify, that national authorities can adopt restrictive measures on a case-by-case basis against EU workers on any of these three grounds.
Sounds as if the problem is that the UK government hasn't bothered to read the treaties it signed.
No, the problem is that those treaties have since been interpreted by the CJEU and have since aquired a much more generous (to the person seeking to move) interpretation.
One problem with "environmental" arguments is getting people to understand scale and replacement effects.
Yep. Whole life cycle accounting is an alien concept. And who thinks to include the carbon footprint contribution of the industries used to subsidize green policies?
Reducing cement production in the UK because it is environmentally unfriendly, uses a lot of power and generates a lot of CO2, and then importing cement from China where is is produced less enviromentally soundly, and less efficiently, and then add on the costs of transporting a heavy bulky product around the world.
Similarly energy tarrifs on high power consumption industies like steel or aluminium smelting, forcing them off shore where the same or more power is used, and then add on the costs to import.
Export jobs whilst making the enviroment worse.
I actually got accused of being a fascist, once, because I believe that the well-to-wheels* calculation is the sensible way to measure emissions by cars.
An excellent thread header (ie I agree with almost all of it).
However, the EU appear to have given up on Britain as a constructive partner for the time being (to be fair, they have had ample cause to do so), so they feel free to indulge their prejudices. This is bad news for the EU and bad news for Britain.
Correct. in principle I'd like the negotiations to have a satisfactory result for all sides. But on the basis of the British approach so far, the appropriate European response is "Go away, have your election, and come back when you've stopped posturing." Juncker's and Merkel's comment seem fair enough in the circs.
Except you are blaming only one side for things not going well, when cyclefree is, I believe, making the point that both sides have been at fault. Indeed, that is the conclusion of the piece (Time for both to say less in public and think more). You are saying we've been idiots and the Europeans are responding, when it is simply more complicated than that, since Tusk for one also chided Juncker (implicitly, when talking of the need for discretion, when the EU side were the ones who leaked). So no, it is not about we've done something, then they've responded with the statesman like response, as you claim.
So once again we have the seemingly reasonable concluding that it is ok for the EU to act inappropriately, but not for the UK, when the actually reasonable would say perhaps both should act appropriately.The leak was inappropriate and insulting, May responded with insults, and hopefully both those things are merely posturing, but the posturing is still demonstrably not coming from one - and as cyclefree points out 'Even if you have right or the law or a majority on your side, a touch of humility, an acceptance that the other side is entitled to feel whatever it is they are feeling, that they have a point – even if you do not agree with it – can help defuse a heated situation'.
Your approach is to say, in effect, that 'No, they're right and we're wrong, therefore it is ok when they act in a manner designed to inflame, rather than defuse, a heated situation'.
Our approach is not helping, but hopefully it is just electioneering. Hiking up demands and leaking that we're delusional idiots - even if that is true, for the sake of argument - you think that is the EU being reasonable? Ok, do you think it helps come to a deal? They are no more being grown ups here than May is.
The strong correlation of football success with Brexit vote continues, with not just the top of the Premiership Remainer, and the relegation zone for Leave. The same pattern of Leave underpermance is present at the bottom of the Championship, with Remainer strength in the Premiership by gaining two more Remainer teams.
Astute PB bettors will want to back Reading or Fulham for the third promotion slot.
The Commission can do nothing that the Council does not want it to do.
Completely wrong. Under the Lisbon Treaty the Commission derives its power from the Treaties not from the Council. It is subject to rulings on interpretation by the ECJ and cannot make decisions on certain areas reserved for the Council such as foreign policy but for the majority of the daily decisions made by the EU it is answerable to the ECJ not the Council. If the Council wishes to object to or prevent a Commission decision it has to get a ruling from the ECJ to do so.
Executive power over the EU as a whole is held by the Commission not the Council.
It would however be accurate to say that the power of initiative ressts with the Council of Ministers. The Commission can'tsimply think up a new policy and implement it; it is limited to exectuve action for existing legislation and preparing draft legislation on request.
It's a classic civil service/quango function. In the same way, the Environment Agency in Britain has the power to implement and enforce the laws on environmental proteciton, but it can't suddenly write some new ones.
Macron shrtening steadily on Betfair - down from 1.10 yesterday to 1.05 now.
Meanwhile, Betfair continues to ponder on whether there's going to be a British General Election his year. Parliament's been dissolved, the Queen has given it the nod, the candidate nomination deadline is looming. Hmm, difficult to tell, eh?
The Commission can do nothing that the Council does not want it to do.
Completely wrong. Under the Lisbon Treaty the Commission derives its power from the Treaties not from the Council. It is subject to rulings on interpretation by the ECJ and cannot make decisions on certain areas reserved for the Council such as foreign policy but for the majority of the daily decisions made by the EU it is answerable to the ECJ not the Council. If the Council wishes to object to or prevent a Commission decision it has to get a ruling from the ECJ to do so.
Executive power over the EU as a whole is held by the Commission not the Council.
It would however be accurate to say that the power of initiative ressts with the Council of Ministers. The Commission can'tsimply think up a new policy and implement it; it is limited to exectuve action for existing legislation and preparing draft legislation on request.
It's a classic civil service/quango function. In the same way, the Environment Agency in Britain has the power to implement and enforce the laws on environmental proteciton, but it can't suddenly write some new ones.
You will find that the Environment Agency (for example) can be remarkably inventive in discovering ways that it can dictate policies and changes without primary legislation.
The way you talk about the EU, more fanatically than any senior EU official or head of government I have ever seen, is astonishing. Guy Verhofstadt is a passionate and vocal supporter of the EU project, he can be pretty rude toward those who do not share his vision, but even he does not seem as extreme as you.
I do not think the EU is by any means
Could have fooled me. I've seen arch europhile EU officials criticise or at least critique it more than you.
Allowing herself to be wound-up by a washed-out, powerless drunk from Luxembourg who will have almost no role in the negotiations does not augur well for the times when our PM has to meet serious and powerful players from the EU. Toy throwing and baseless accusations might win elections, but they rarely deliver good agreements.
The Commission is the EU's civil service. Its only powers relate to implementation. The head of the Commission is powerful in the way that the head of the UK civil service is powerful. He can do nothing that goes against the wishes of the Council of Ministers.
No. You are simply ignorant of how the EU works, both in theory and practice. I suggest you do some reading on the matter.
The Commission can do nothing that the Council does not want it to do.
Completely wrong. Under the Lisbon Treaty the Commission derives its power from the Treaties not from the Council. It is subject to rulings on interpretation by the ECJ and cannot make decisions on certain areas reserved for the Council such as foreign policy but for the majority of the daily decisions made by the EU it is answerable to the ECJ not the Council. If the Council wishes to object to or prevent a Commission decision it has to get a ruling from the ECJ to do so.
Executive power over the EU as a whole is held by the Commission not the Council.
It would however be accurate to say that the power of initiative ressts with the Council of Ministers. The Commission can'tsimply think up a new policy and implement it; it is limited to exectuve action for existing legislation and preparing draft legislation on request.
It's a classic civil service/quango function. In the same way, the Environment Agency in Britain has the power to implement and enforce the laws on environmental proteciton, but it can't suddenly write some new ones.
Would it not be fair to say that the requests from the Council are generally speaking pretty broad-brush, and that within that general outline it is for the Commission to decide on the implementation in most cases. Its not a lot better than enabling powers for UK Ministers.
A directive from the Council that the Commisson should bring forward proposals and draft legislation for providing solutions to excess immigration from outside the EU (for example) does leave them quite a lot of latitude for what actually happens.
Meanwhile the European Parliament, the actually elected bit, has no powers to bring forward new legislation at all.
Macron shrtening steadily on Betfair - down from 1.10 yesterday to 1.05 now.
Meanwhile, Betfair continues to ponder on whether there's going to be a British General Election his year. Parliament's been dissolved, the Queen has given it the nod, the candidate nomination deadline is looming. Hmm, difficult to tell, eh?
I think they are playing it safe incase a meteorite strike hits Central London...
An excellent thread header (ie I agree with almost all of it).
However, the EU appear to have given up on Britain as a constructive partner for the time being (to be fair, they have had ample cause to do so), so they feel free to indulge their prejudices. This is bad news for the EU and bad news for Britain.
Correct. in principle I'd like the negotiations to have a satisfactory result for all sides. But on the basis of the British approach so far, the appropriate European response is "Go away, have your election, and come back when you've stopped posturing." Juncker's and Merkel's comment seem fair enough in the circs.
Except you are blaming only one side for things not going well, when cyclefree is, I believe, making the point that both sides have been at fault. Indeed, that is the conclusion of the piece. You are saying we've been idiots and the Europeans are responding, when it is simply more complicated than that, since Tusk for one also chided Juncker (implicitly, when talking of the need for discretion, when the EU side were the ones who leaked).
So once again we have the seemingly reasonable concluding that it is ok for the EU to act inappropriately, but not for the UK, when the actually reasonable would say perhaps both should act appropriately.
This is a fair point. However, there are differences. For example, Juncker has no say over the EU's negotiating position and will play little to no role in the Brexit negotiations. To portray him as "the EU" is just plain wrong, or dishonest. Barnier and the national leaders are the key players in all this. May, on the other hand, will ultimately decide the UK's negotiating positions and will lead the negotiations for us.
Allowing herself to be wound-up by a washed-out, powerless drunk from Luxembourg who will have almost no role in the negotiations does not augur well for the times when our PM has to meet serious and powerful players from the EU. Toy throwing and baseless accusations might win elections, but they rarely deliver good agreements.
The Commission is the EU's civil service. Its only powers relate to implementation. The head of the Commission is powerful in the way that the head of the UK civil service is powerful. He can do nothing that goes against the wishes of the Council of Ministers.
No. You are simply ignorant of how the EU works, both in theory and practice. I suggest you do some reading on the matter.
The way you talk about the EU, more fanatically than any senior EU official or head of government I have ever seen, is astonishing. Guy Verhofstadt is a passionate and vocal supporter of the EU project, he can be pretty rude toward those who do not share his vision, but even he does not seem as extreme as you.
I do not think the EU is by any means
Could have fooled me. I've seen arch europhile EU officials criticise or at least critique it more than you.
I can't recall more than a token posting that doesnt some how come back to what a disaster BrExit is and how there will soon follow plagues of locusts etc. Its more monotonous than the offerings of IOS or that Hillary ramper we had a few months ago.
The Commission can do nothing that the Council does not want it to do.
Completely wrong. Under the Lisbon Treaty the Commission derives its power from the Treaties not from the Council. It is subject to rulings on interpretation by the ECJ and cannot make decisions on certain areas reserved for the Council such as foreign policy but for the majority of the daily decisions made by the EU it is answerable to the ECJ not the Council. If the Council wishes to object to or prevent a Commission decision it has to get a ruling from the ECJ to do so.
Executive power over the EU as a whole is held by the Commission not the Council.
It would however be accurate to say that the power of initiative ressts with the Council of Ministers. The Commission can'tsimply think up a new policy and implement it; it is limited to exectuve action for existing legislation and preparing draft legislation on request.
It's a classic civil service/quango function. In the same way, the Environment Agency in Britain has the power to implement and enforce the laws on environmental proteciton, but it can't suddenly write some new ones.
Actually again not true. If you will excuse me using Wikipedia for ease rather than digging out the specific clauses:
"The Commission differs from the other institutions in that it alone has legislative initiative in the EU. Only the Commission can make formal proposals for legislation: they cannot originate in the legislative branches. Under the Treaty of Lisbon, no legislative act is allowed in the field of the Common Foreign and Security Policy. In the other fields the Council and Parliament are able to request legislation; in most cases the Commission initiates the basis of these proposals."
The way you talk about the EU, more fanatically than any senior EU official or head of government I have ever seen, is astonishing. Guy Verhofstadt is a passionate and vocal supporter of the EU project, he can be pretty rude toward those who do not share his vision, but even he does not seem as extreme as you.
I do not think the EU is by any means
Could have fooled me. I've seen arch europhile EU officials criticise or at least critique it more than you.
I can't recall more than a token posting that doesnt some how come back to what a disaster BrExit is and how there will soon follow plagues of locusts etc. Its more monotonous than the offerings of IOS or that Hillary ramper we had a few months ago.
I posted extensively before the US election predicting a Trump victory and the manner in which it would happen, but at this point Brexit overwhelms all other issues.
In the context of Brexit, criticisms of the EU miss the point. It's there and we have to deal with it. We sought for hundreds of years to avoid facing a united Europe alone, and now through our own actions that's exactly what we've conspired to bring about. The fools who brought us to this position (by which I mean the Eurosceptic politicians) need to pay a heavy price for their undermining of our national interest.
Macron shrtening steadily on Betfair - down from 1.10 yesterday to 1.05 now.
Meanwhile, Betfair continues to ponder on whether there's going to be a British General Election his year. Parliament's been dissolved, the Queen has given it the nod, the candidate nomination deadline is looming. Hmm, difficult to tell, eh?
Le Pen on 30-35% is now better odds than the 40-45% band FWIW.
Assuming the result reporting times match the first round, Le Pen is likely to drift down by a couple of percent or so from the initial reported results.
The way you talk about the EU, more fanatically than any senior EU official or head of government I have ever seen, is astonishing. Guy Verhofstadt is a passionate and vocal supporter of the EU project, he can be pretty rude toward those who do not share his vision, but even he does not seem as extreme as you.
I do not think the EU is by any means
Could have fooled me. I've seen arch europhile EU officials criticise or at least critique it more than you.
I can't recall more than a token posting that doesnt some how come back to what a disaster BrExit is and how there will soon follow plagues of locusts etc. Its more monotonous than the offerings of IOS or that Hillary ramper we had a few months ago.
The way you talk about the EU, more fanatically than any senior EU official or head of government I have ever seen, is astonishing. Guy Verhofstadt is a passionate and vocal supporter of the EU project, he can be pretty rude toward those who do not share his vision, but even he does not seem as extreme as you.
I do not think the EU is by any means
Could have fooled me. I've seen arch europhile EU officials criticise or at least critique it more than you.
I can't recall more than a token posting that doesnt some how come back to what a disaster BrExit is and how there will soon follow plagues of locusts etc. Its more monotonous than the offerings of IOS or that Hillary ramper we had a few months ago.
HillaryBot #619 was hilarious, constantly pretending that she was just a political follower, yet she managed to write 10,000 posts in six months - of which 9,000 were blatant ramping for Hillary - only to disappear on the night of the election.
The funniest thing, which I'm still not sure she noticed, was that precisely no-one commenting on this board actually had a vote in the US Presidential election.
The way you talk about the EU, more fanatically than any senior EU official or head of government I have ever seen, is astonishing. Guy Verhofstadt is a passionate and vocal supporter of the EU project, he can be pretty rude toward those who do not share his vision, but even he does not seem as extreme as you.
I do not think the EU is by any means
Could have fooled me. I've seen arch europhile EU officials criticise or at least critique it more than you.
I can't recall more than a token posting that doesnt some how come back to what a disaster BrExit is and how there will soon follow plagues of locusts etc. Its more monotonous than the offerings of IOS or that Hillary ramper we had a few months ago.
HillaryBot #619 was hilarious, constantly pretending that she was just a political follower, yet she managed to write 10,000 posts in six months - of which 9,000 were blatant ramping for Hillary - only to disappear on the night of the election.
The funniest thing, which I'm still not sure she noticed, was that precisely no-one commenting on this board actually had a vote in the US Presidential election.
A few do, but the vast majority do not. So very much a wasted effort.
The way you talk about the EU, more fanatically than any senior EU official or head of government I have ever seen, is astonishing. Guy Verhofstadt is a passionate and vocal supporter of the EU project, he can be pretty rude toward those who do not share his vision, but even he does not seem as extreme as you.
I do not think the EU is by any means
Could have fooled me. I've seen arch europhile EU officials criticise or at least critique it more than you.
I can't recall more than a token posting that doesnt some how come back to what a disaster BrExit is and how there will soon follow plagues of locusts etc. Its more monotonous than the offerings of IOS or that Hillary ramper we had a few months ago.
I posted extensively before the US election predicting a Trump victory and the manner in which it would happen, but at this point Brexit overwhelms all other issues.
In the context of Brexit, criticisms of the EU miss the point. It's there and we have to deal with it. We sought for hundreds of years to avoid facing a united Europe alone, and now through our own actions that's exactly what we've conspired to bring about. The fools who brought us to this position (by which I mean the Eurosceptic politicians) need to pay a heavy price for their undermining of our national interest.
But your chance of changing the mind of anyone on this site by banging on about it is approximate the square root of zero. Even if you should manage the a feat of changing a single mind at the expensive of boring everyone else to death, no one here has any influence over it (unless TP gets lucky ).
The Commission can do nothing that the Council does not want it to do.
Completely wrong. Under the Lisbon Treaty the Commission derives its power from the Treaties not from the Council. It is subject to rulings on interpretation by the ECJ and cannot make decisions on certain areas reserved for the Council such as foreign policy but for the majority of the daily decisions made by the EU it is answerable to the ECJ not the Council. If the Council wishes to object to or prevent a Commission decision it has to get a ruling from the ECJ to do so.
Executive power over the EU as a whole is held by the Commission not the Council.
It would however be accurate to say that the power of initiative ressts with the Council of Ministers. The Commission can'tsimply think up a new policy and implement it; it is limited to exectuve action for existing legislation and preparing draft legislation on request.
It's a classic civil service/quango function. In the same way, the Environment Agency in Britain has the power to implement and enforce the laws on environmental proteciton, but it can't suddenly write some new ones.
Actually again not true. If you will excuse me using Wikipedia for ease rather than digging out the specific clauses:
"The Commission differs from the other institutions in that it alone has legislative initiative in the EU. Only the Commission can make formal proposals for legislation: they cannot originate in the legislative branches. Under the Treaty of Lisbon, no legislative act is allowed in the field of the Common Foreign and Security Policy. In the other fields the Council and Parliament are able to request legislation; in most cases the Commission initiates the basis of these proposals."
The Commission can and does think up new policy.
But no legislation becomes law until the Council of Ministers has OKed it and it has been passed by a vote of the European Parliament.
The way you talk about the EU, more fanatically than any senior EU official or head of government I have ever seen, is astonishing. Guy Verhofstadt is a passionate and vocal supporter of the EU project, he can be pretty rude toward those who do not share his vision, but even he does not seem as extreme as you.
I do not think the EU is by any means
Could have fooled me. I've seen arch europhile EU officials criticise or at least critique it more than you.
I can't recall more than a token posting that doesnt some how come back to what a disaster BrExit is and how there will soon follow plagues of locusts etc. Its more monotonous than the offerings of IOS or that Hillary ramper we had a few months ago.
I posted extensively before the US election predicting a Trump victory and the manner in which it would happen, but at this point Brexit overwhelms all other issues.
In the context of Brexit, criticisms of the EU miss the point. It's there and we have to deal with it. We sought for hundreds of years to avoid facing a united Europe alone, and now through our own actions that's exactly what we've conspired to bring about. The fools who brought us to this position (by which I mean the Eurosceptic politicians) need to pay a heavy price for their undermining of our national interest.
But your chance of changing the mind of anyone on this site by banging on about it is approximate the square root of zero. Even if you should manage the a feat of changing a single mind at the expensive of boring everyone else to death, no one here has any influence over it (unless TP gets lucky ).
Boring people to death is a good substitute for changing minds. Look at the exodus of Leavers from politics since the vote already. In the end the whole country will be so bored of Brexit we'll just want it to go away and never be spoken of again.
Macron shrtening steadily on Betfair - down from 1.10 yesterday to 1.05 now.
Meanwhile, Betfair continues to ponder on whether there's going to be a British General Election his year. Parliament's been dissolved, the Queen has given it the nod, the candidate nomination deadline is looming. Hmm, difficult to tell, eh?
I could do with that market being settled at a loss of 387 to me. I am going to be into premium charges once the French election is settled...
The Commission can do nothing that the Council does not want it to do.
Completely wrong. Under the Lisbon Treaty the Commission derives its power from the Treaties not from the Council. It is subject to rulings on interpretation by the ECJ and cannot make decisions on certain areas reserved for the Council such as foreign policy but for the majority of the daily decisions made by the EU it is answerable to the ECJ not the Council. If the Council wishes to object to or prevent a Commission decision it has to get a ruling from the ECJ to do so.
Executive power over the EU as a whole is held by the Commission not the Council.
It would however be accurate to say that the power of initiative ressts with the Council of Ministers. The Commission can'tsimply think up a new policy and implement it; it is limited to exectuve action for existing legislation and preparing draft legislation on request.
It's a classic civil service/quango function. In the same way, the Environment Agency in Britain has the power to implement and enforce the laws on environmental proteciton, but it can't suddenly write some new ones.
Actually again not true. If you will excuse me using Wikipedia for ease rather than digging out the specific clauses:
"The Commission differs from the other institutions in that it alone has legislative initiative in the EU. Only the Commission can make formal proposals for legislation: they cannot originate in the legislative branches. Under the Treaty of Lisbon, no legislative act is allowed in the field of the Common Foreign and Security Policy. In the other fields the Council and Parliament are able to request legislation; in most cases the Commission initiates the basis of these proposals."
The Commission can and does think up new policy.
But no legislation becomes law until the Council of Ministers has OKed it and it has been passed by a vote of the European Parliament.
Nor until the Commission has agreed it. They have far more power than the Civil Service and your portrayal of them as such is simply false.
Allowing herself to be wound-up by a washed-out, powerless drunk from Luxembourg who will have almost no role in the negotiations does not augur well for the times when our PM has to meet serious and powerful players from the EU. Toy throwing and baseless accusations might win elections, but they rarely deliver good agreements.
The Commission is the EU's civil service. Its only powers relate to implementation. The head of the Commission is powerful in the way that the head of the UK civil service is powerful. He can do nothing that goes against the wishes of the Council of Ministers.
No. You are simply ignorant of how the EU works, both in theory and practice. I suggest you do some reading on the matter.
Comments
The population here is poor, so one would expect absentee ballots to be higher than the France mainland.
Nuls = Spoilt; more that one candidate marked, penis drawn on it etc.
But this is Guadeloupe and probably not representative of the mainland.
The Commission implements policy, it does not decide it. That's the way it works. The real power in the EU lies with the Council of Ministers and, to a lesser extent, with some of the individual DGs, which get to interpret policy on a day to day basis: DG Competition, for example.
Would it be possible to put in a hide / reveal toggle for the header articles. Much that I appreciate the articles and always read them, when viewing on mobile if you then want to interact with the comments it can be a real pain to have to scroll through all of the articles each time you do a page refresh.
It is the EC which initiates new legislation and holds the power to repeal existing (rarely exercised). It is the EC which holds the pen on the drafting of legislation. It is the EC which has nearly all the technical experts, a huge institutional advantage. It is the EC which is the focus of lobbying efforts by industry and others.
I have worked in industry affected by EU legislation. Believe me, when an EC official walks into the room he is accorded respect and carries authority that in the UK would be reserved for the head of an elected MP like the Chair of a Commons Select Committee. And the lobbyists cluster around the Berlaymont building on the Schuman roundabout because they know that is where power lies.
What this means is that most regulations pass without any input at all from the Council.
Photos of Ed Miliband helping a voter mow her lawn as he campaigned in the local elections were "set up" by his team, the "angry" constituent has claimed.
However, the voter has suggested she had to help Mr Miliband start the machine and that she had originally believed he was a Jehovah's Witness.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/07/ed-milibands-grass-roots-mowing-picture-just-pr-stunt-angry/
Nothing will change unless the owners are replaced with better ones.
I watched an hour or so of the European Parliament yesterday. A Spanish professor spoke a lot of practical sense about WHAT the EU needed to do. Unfortunately, it was followed by Michel Barmier with the usual la-la-la, we're not listening, we must punish the traitorous sons of Albion.
Sad, really. The Chuckle Brothers (Juncker and Barnier) have the self-awareness and intransigence of Jeremy Corbyn without his intelligence (yes, I know).
No. Treaty rights of free movement are subject to limitations.
Article 45(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (hereinafter: TFEU) states that the rights to (a) accept offers of employment, (b) move freely between States to take up employment, (c) reside in other Member States, and (d) the right to stay in another Member State after employment has finished, are subject to ‘limitations justified on grounds of public policy, public security or public health’. This means, to simplify, that national authorities can adopt restrictive measures on a case-by-case basis against EU workers on any of these three grounds.
Sounds as if the problem is that the UK government hasn't bothered to read the treaties it signed.
I would only add that it's not just industry and lobbyists which think that way - officials and politicians from the Member States and extra-EU officials do too.
The Council can, in theory, and occasionally in practice, make life difficult for the Commission, but in practice the Commission will get its own way. The sheer volume of work will swamp the Council; the Commission has the staff and most of the experts; there is a strong incentive not to be seen to be anti-Communitaire; and most of the members of the Council are likely to go native after a while anyway.
He says one morning Mr Brown was half listening to Radio 4's Today when he heard Alan Johnson would be interviewed in the prime 08:10 slot.
"There were no announcements on health to be made, no emergencies to respond to. What was I playing at, Gordon demanded to know. Was this insubordination? Spontaneity? A leadership bid?" Mr Johnson wrote.
After a number of "frantic" calls between the BBC and Alan Johnson's media adviser at the time, Chris Norton, they were able to explain the situation to Downing Street.
BBC correspondent Alan Johnston was being interviewed on the programme about his kidnap ordeal in Gaza where he was held captive for 114 days.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-39799138
Wasn't called the Prime Mentalist for nothing.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/indian-premier-league-2017/engine/match/1082636.html
"He couldn't start the machine, I had to help him," the paper quotes her as saying.
"It was rubbish. I'm not even a Labour supporter. If it had been David Miliband it would have been absolutely fine."
Similarly energy tarrifs on high power consumption industies like steel or aluminium smelting, forcing them off shore where the same or more power is used, and then add on the costs to import.
Export jobs whilst making the enviroment worse.
Mr McDonnell also discusses Marxism and what there is to learn from Das Kapital
Voice over...Coming this autumn...John McDonnell presents a 5 part series called Introduction to Marxism.
Executive power over the EU as a whole is held by the Commission not the Council.
Also see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens’_Rights_Directive
*Not a bad explanation here https://matter2energy.wordpress.com/2013/02/22/wells-to-wheels-electric-car-efficiency/
So once again we have the seemingly reasonable concluding that it is ok for the EU to act inappropriately, but not for the UK, when the actually reasonable would say perhaps both should act appropriately.The leak was inappropriate and insulting, May responded with insults, and hopefully both those things are merely posturing, but the posturing is still demonstrably not coming from one - and as cyclefree points out 'Even if you have right or the law or a majority on your side, a touch of humility, an acceptance that the other side is entitled to feel whatever it is they are feeling, that they have a point – even if you do not agree with it – can help defuse a heated situation'.
Your approach is to say, in effect, that 'No, they're right and we're wrong, therefore it is ok when they act in a manner designed to inflame, rather than defuse, a heated situation'.
Our approach is not helping, but hopefully it is just electioneering. Hiking up demands and leaking that we're delusional idiots - even if that is true, for the sake of argument - you think that is the EU being reasonable? Ok, do you think it helps come to a deal? They are no more being grown ups here than May is.
Astute PB bettors will want to back Reading or Fulham for the third promotion slot.
Now, back to that garden ;-)
It's a classic civil service/quango function. In the same way, the Environment Agency in Britain has the power to implement and enforce the laws on environmental proteciton, but it can't suddenly write some new ones.
Meanwhile, Betfair continues to ponder on whether there's going to be a British General Election his year. Parliament's been dissolved, the Queen has given it the nod, the candidate nomination deadline is looming. Hmm, difficult to tell, eh?
A directive from the Council that the Commisson should bring forward proposals and draft legislation for providing solutions to excess immigration from outside the EU (for example) does leave them quite a lot of latitude for what actually happens.
Meanwhile the European Parliament, the actually elected bit, has no powers to bring forward new legislation at all.
"The Commission differs from the other institutions in that it alone has legislative initiative in the EU. Only the Commission can make formal proposals for legislation: they cannot originate in the legislative branches. Under the Treaty of Lisbon, no legislative act is allowed in the field of the Common Foreign and Security Policy. In the other fields the Council and Parliament are able to request legislation; in most cases the Commission initiates the basis of these proposals."
The Commission can and does think up new policy.
In the context of Brexit, criticisms of the EU miss the point. It's there and we have to deal with it. We sought for hundreds of years to avoid facing a united Europe alone, and now through our own actions that's exactly what we've conspired to bring about. The fools who brought us to this position (by which I mean the Eurosceptic politicians) need to pay a heavy price for their undermining of our national interest.
Assuming the result reporting times match the first round, Le Pen is likely to drift down by a couple of percent or so from the initial reported results.
The funniest thing, which I'm still not sure she noticed, was that precisely no-one commenting on this board actually had a vote in the US Presidential election.
NEW THREAD