EU Elections Thread

[Just Browny]

1 minute ago, ckn said:

For example, I detest that they can't get their accounts approved or audited, that reeks of maladministration and something dodgy.  The EU refuses to fix it and that grates heavily on my sense of honest dealing.

 

It has been shown time and time again that the bit of the EU that doesn't get its accounts signed off are the onward transmission of funds passed to national governments. So the maladministration takes place within national/regional administrations: there is very little that EU institutions can do about it from Brussels except shine a light on it. That, happily, is what the European Court of Auditors does but, less happily those reports are held up by Brexiters as 'proof' that it cannot get its accounts signed off.

[SSoutherner]

7 minutes ago, Private Baldrick said:

I haven't said I disagree with a WTO Brexit, I said I want a negotiated departure. If there is no negotiated deal then all options are open. In the EU elections the Brexit Party will get my vote as a protest against the main parties failures.

A WTO Brexit is however a non negotiated departure - as we cant actually go onto WTO schedules for 7-10 years (as detailed above) a WTO Brexit actually means a non negotiated exit and then we hope people will then negotiate in haste as we have caused such a mess

It is literally the same as deciding whilst in divorce proceeding to stop answering all calls and letters transfer everything out of the joint accounts and drive off into the sunset in the hope that you are tracked down in a hurry to arrange the child custody and financial arrangements that you thought were taking a bit long to sort out - and will likely end up annoying the other party about as much

[ckn]

4 minutes ago, Just Browny said:

It has been shown time and time again that the bit of the EU that doesn't get its accounts signed off are the onward transmission of funds passed to national governments. So the maladministration takes place within national/regional administrations: there is very little that EU institutions can do about it from Brussels except shine a light on it. That, happily, is what the European Court of Auditors does but, less happily those reports are held up by Brexiters as 'proof' that it cannot get its accounts signed off.

I know what you're on about there but it's not that simple, the EU turns big blind eyes to where some of its funding goes in some countries to "grease the wheels".  Overall though, the good they do overwhelmingly outweighs that negatives of that.

Still, would you accept that's a fair reason for some people to think Leave is a decent idea?  Especially when put against the firm pre-referendum context of the likes of Farage, Hannan and the rest that we'd still be in the Single Market once we "leave" the EU?  We'd be effectively still in the things that matter but now at a further arm's length.

I'm an overwhelming Remain voter and nothing would get me to change my mind but I can see WHY some folk would think differently based on what we were told before the referendum.

[SSoutherner]

I also think the language used does not help in perceptions

The fact that the Eu creates "Directives" sounds authoritarian, if they were instead called "frameworks" for instance the difference in perception between 

"The 3rd EU Driving Licence Directive" and "The 3rd EU driving licence framework" is substantial, one sounds like it is imposing something whilst the other sounds like guidance

Whilst in fact that was the Eu setting up a common set of Driving licence categories etc so you could know a driver with category B from Hungary was theoretically trained to the same standard as one from Ireland 

[Griff9of13]

20 minutes ago, ckn said:

For example, I detest that they can't get their accounts approved or audited, that reeks of maladministration and something dodgy.  The EU refuses to fix it and that grates heavily on my sense of honest dealing.

Not entirely true: Full Fact

"Auditors say the accounts have been accurate since 2007. But they have historically recorded significant errors in how money is paid since their first audit in 1995. In the most recent year, they found a significant part of the EU’s spending was largely error-free for the first time."

[ckn]

Just now, Griff9of13 said:

Not entirely true: Full Fact

"Auditors say the accounts have been accurate since 2007. But they have historically recorded significant errors in how money is paid since their first audit in 1995. In the most recent year, they found a significant part of the EU’s spending was largely error-free for the first time."

There's a difference between "error free" and ensuring it all goes into the right hands.

The best example of a British politician with this is Boris Johnson's bridge in London.  That money just disappeared with zero accountability and nothing to show for it.

[Just Browny]

17 minutes ago, ckn said:

I know what you're on about there but it's not that simple, the EU turns big blind eyes to where some of its funding goes in some countries to "grease the wheels".  Overall though, the good they do overwhelmingly outweighs that negatives of that.

Still, would you accept that's a fair reason for some people to think Leave is a decent idea?  Especially when put against the firm pre-referendum context of the likes of Farage, Hannan and the rest that we'd still be in the Single Market once we "leave" the EU?  We'd be effectively still in the things that matter but now at a further arm's length.

I'm an overwhelming Remain voter and nothing would get me to change my mind but I can see WHY some folk would think differently based on what we were told before the referendum.

No. I would see it as a strong argument for increasing the EU's powers of direct intervention, rather than rely on Member State Governments agreeing by unanimity to punish one of their own. I think it is a helpful canard for the likes of Mark François to beat the EU around the head with when the amounts of money involved are tiny in relation to the overall benefits.

There are loads of things we could do to make the EU better. We could get rid of the Committee of the Regions or the Economic and Social Committee at a stroke and save millions of euros. I would use the money to try to create a genuine European political space for debate and cooperation. I would force many Commission civil servants out from behind their desks into the real world to go and see what changes are needed before they introduce new policies. 

There are loads of things that could be fixed; none of them are a reason to quit.

[Griff9of13]

17 minutes ago, SSoutherner said:

I also think the language used does not help in perceptions

The fact that the Eu creates "Directives" sounds authoritarian, if they were instead called "frameworks" for instance the difference in perception between 

"The 3rd EU Driving Licence Directive" and "The 3rd EU driving licence framework" is substantial, one sounds like it is imposing something whilst the other sounds like guidance

Whilst in fact that was the Eu setting up a common set of Driving licence categories etc so you could know a driver with category B from Hungary was theoretically trained to the same standard as one from Ireland 

Thinking aloud: I wonder if that is a "lost in translation" thing and that "directive" is perfectly acceptable turn of phrase to a German/French/Italian ear?

[Griff9of13]

2 minutes ago, Just Browny said:

No. I would see it as a strong argument for increasing the EU's powers of direct intervention, rather than rely on Member State Governments agreeing by unanimity to punish one of their own. I think it is a helpful canard for the likes of Mark François to beat the EU around the head with when the amounts of money involved are tiny in relation to the overall benefits.

There are loads of things we could do to make the EU better. We could get rid of the Committee of the Regions or the Economic and Social Committee at a stroke and save millions of euros. I would use the money to try to create a genuine European political space for debate and cooperation. I would force many Commission civil servants out from behind their desks into the real world to go and see what changes are needed before they introduce new policies. 

There are loads of things that could be fixed; none of them are a reason to quit.

Absolutely. There has never been, nor ever will be, the perfect administration. But it's the best we've got, by a long way. Not that we should stop trying to improve it from within.

[Just Browny]

4 minutes ago, Griff9of13 said:

Thinking aloud: I wonder if that is a "lost in translation" thing and that "directive" is perfectly acceptable turn of phrase to a German/French/Italian ear?

If you're writing a law, which is what a Directive is, it is perfectly acceptable for it to sound like a law. A framework sounds like something that can be ignored, so it would be.

Changing the language won't make any difference if governments aren't going to act like adults and explain to the population why they have agreed to new laws at EU level, or indeed any level.

[Bob8]

5 hours ago, Saintslass said:

I think you need to stop being rude in every post you make in response to me.

 

You are deliberately evading and knowingly making assertions you know to be untrue. I find that rude.  I tried to discuss, you evaded. Then asserted things you knew to be untrue. Considering how many times I have defended you on here that makes me naive. 

Very well.  Continue to deny reality. 

[SSoutherner]

8 minutes ago, Just Browny said:

If you're writing a law, which is what a Directive is, it is perfectly acceptable for it to sound like a law. A framework sounds like something that can be ignored, so it would be.

Changing the language won't make any difference if governments aren't going to act like adults and explain to the population why they have agreed to new laws at EU level, or indeed any level.

But it is a framework - it is a set of key elements that the national govts then translate into their domestic legislation - look at the difference between how the UK deals with veterinary oversight in abattoir compared with the French - both have implemented the same EU Directive Council Directive 2002/99/EC but in totally differing ways - we said a Vet has to be present and the french introduced the equiv of a BTEC training head slaughtermen to carry out the oversight. One way forced small abattoir out of business 1did not

[Bob8]

2 hours ago, gingerjon said:

Or, because this is a debate going on here, you could explain how you think it will work.

After three years, are you going to get an answer or be called rude for asking? Since 2016,  we still have no clarification on what they want the Irish border to be like. 

They want lots of ice-cream for dinner and claim their tummy ache is due to betrayal. 

[SSoutherner]

6 minutes ago, Bob8 said:

After three years, are you going to get an answer or be called rude for asking? Since 2016,  we still have no clarification on what they want the Irish border to be like. 

They want lots of ice-cream for dinner and claim their tummy ache is due to betrayal. 

They want it to be like it is now (something you dont need to think about) but with differing rules possible on either side of it (which is obviously pie in the sky)

[Just Browny]

7 minutes ago, SSoutherner said:

But it is a framework - it is a set of key elements that the national govts then translate into their domestic legislation - look at the difference between how the UK deals with veterinary oversight in abattoir compared with the French - both have implemented the same EU Directive Council Directive 2002/99/EC but in totally differing ways - we said a Vet has to be present and the french introduced the equiv of a BTEC training head slaughtermen to carry out the oversight. One way forced small abattoir out of business 1did not

That's interesting but the Directive is still a law which tells MS what outcomes their legislation needs to achieve. 

[SSoutherner]

17 minutes ago, Just Browny said:

That's interesting but the Directive is still a law which tells MS what outcomes their legislation needs to achieve. 

Yes i agree we are just arguing semantics but that was my point really - language matters in how people perceive something, calling it a legislative framework would not change it's effect but wouldn't sound like an imposition like "directive" does

[SSoutherner]

Anyway as an aside let us hope that the EU elections get counted better than local ones having seen this bit of news form near Swindon

https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/highworth-council-election-count-petition-high-court-local-elections/ (i have removed the party name as this is about the process not which party profiteered from the mess up)

People from from the parish town of Highworth, in Wiltshire, have demanded a recount of the 2 May local election after 10 candidates received more than than 3,000 votes each despite a total of 2,477 people voting.

[Shadow]

1 hour ago, SSoutherner said:

Anyway as an aside let us hope that the EU elections get counted better than local ones having seen this bit of news form near Swindon

https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/highworth-council-election-count-petition-high-court-local-elections/ (i have removed the party name as this is about the process not which party profiteered from the mess up)

People from from the parish town of Highworth, in Wiltshire, have demanded a recount of the 2 May local election after 10 candidates received more than than 3,000 votes each despite a total of 2,477 people voting.

You'd hope if the councillors concerned had any decency they'd stand down and trigger a by election. The crowd funding could be used to cover any costs.

Except I have checked the party and realise the futility in hoping for decency from the councillors. 

[Bedford Roughyed]

Not sure their heart is really in it....

 

[Bearman]

2 hours ago, Just Browny said:

Go on..

What about the £150m pa for the cost of the monthly swap between Brussels and Strasbourg?.

[SSoutherner]

17 minutes ago, Bearman said:

What about the £150m pa for the cost of the monthly swap between Brussels and Strasbourg?.

Yes that is stupid (although it is not £150m pa it is E114m which is £99.6m today) - although i think i would prefer a centrally based civil service and the actual debates to rotate around the EU using countries existing legislative buildings, so over each 4 year european parliament it sat in each country a couple of times - would maybe cost a bit more but would make it feel closer to people and their lives - equally why can't parliament sit in Manchester a couple of times a year - they have plenty of recesses to allow time for setting things up (whitsun recess in a  short while)

[Private Baldrick]

How about getting rid of the whole EU thing?

Why not just be a collection of sovereign nation states trading together freely and for the benefit of its people? Why do we need an EU Parliament, a flag, an anthem, a currency, an army, the commissioners, the beaurocrats etc and all the trappings of a nation state when there is no need?

Many nations trade routinely with other nations without the need to submerge themselves into a political union with every country around it. Free and open trade is not reliant on being in an artificial political club.

Let's just get back to the basics and be normal individual nation states trading freely.

[Bearman]

31 minutes ago, SSoutherner said:

Yes that is stupid (although it is not £150m pa it is E114m which is £99.6m today) - although i think i would prefer a centrally based civil service and the actual debates to rotate around the EU using countries existing legislative buildings, so over each 4 year european parliament it sat in each country a couple of times - would maybe cost a bit more but would make it feel closer to people and their lives - equally why can't parliament sit in Manchester a couple of times a year - they have plenty of recesses to allow time for setting things up (whitsun recess in a  short while)

That E114 was the figure was an estimate from 2014. 5 years on it will have increased. 

The whole needless waste is only because of French vanity.

" look after the pennies......."

[SSoutherner]

24 minutes ago, Bearman said:

That E114 was the figure was an estimate from 2014. 5 years on it will have increased. 

The whole needless waste is only because of French vanity.

" look after the pennies......."

i took it from a Dec 2017 reuters article which said it was the figure given by the auditors, i could find no more recent number but i doubt a 50% rise in 2 years. Whatever, as you say watch out for the pennies, but compared with the £550m annual cost of running Westminster and the estimated £4bn repair bill it starts to look less stupid https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/publication/parliamentary-monitor-2018/cost

[SSoutherner]

46 minutes ago, Private Baldrick said:

How about getting rid of the whole EU thing?

Why not just be a collection of sovereign nation states trading together freely and for the benefit of its people? Why do we need an EU Parliament, a flag, an anthem, a currency, an army, the commissioners, the beaurocrats etc and all the trappings of a nation state when there is no need?

Many nations trade routinely with other nations without the need to submerge themselves into a political union with every country around it. Free and open trade is not reliant on being in an artificial political club.

Let's just get back to the basics and be normal individual nation states trading freely.

Actually very few countries now trade without being involved in a trading bloc and ALL trading blocs have a political element (ASEAN, CPTPP, Mercosur NAFTA). If you have a common trading identity then that identity needs staff etc, the numbers look huge on their own but when you look at them copmpared to each individual countries numbers of civil servants and associated costs suddenly you realise that pro rata it is actually pretty cheap (and i doubt the flag cost much to design), it has no army, the anthem was a simple vote, the currency is voluntary for us older members and useful to new smaller ones as it gives stability being tied to the German economy