European Parliament election, 2014

^If the UK leaves the EU, but Scotland becomes independent and joins the EU, this would create a serious issue with the Pound used as currency in Scotland, cause the EU policies in Scotland would have an effect on the Pound and vice-versa.

And cosidering how nice the EU handled other issues up to now, do you think it will be easy for it to handle this one too?
 
why do "eurocritics" always have to revert to such militiaristic jargon?

Because they represents Europe's past. Any notions that the nationalists have changed and that fragmented Europe under their leadership would be different than the pre-EU Europe is an absurd one.

Suppose they get what they want. For now, the nationalists/right-wing populists/fascists are more or less united on the platform of their hatred of the EU and immigration/anti-globalization. So the EU collapses, they seize control of their respective member states - then what?

They turn on each other, and we're back in 1930s. They offer ZERO alternative to the EU. They have no concept of an alternate route for Europe to take if it abandoned integration on the EU platform.

This is what the mainstream need to explain to the voters. Stop being afraid of the nationalists/populists, stop trying to accommodate them - confront them!



^If the UK leaves the EU, but Scotland becomes independent and joins the EU, this would create a serious issue with the Pound used as currency in Scotland, cause the EU policies in Scotland would have an effect on the Pound and vice-versa.

And cosidering how nice the EU handled other issues up to now, do you think it will be easy for it to handle this one too?

In that case it would probably be necessary for Scotland to switch to the Euro.
 
Cameron and a handful of other government leaders show their true colours by opposing democracy and pandering to the far-right:

EU power struggle as Cameron tries to stop Juncker getting top job

Europe's leaders were plunged into a power struggle over who gets the biggest job in the EU late on Tuesday, with David Cameron seeking to drum up support to prevent a veteran insider becoming the new head of the European commission. He won cautious and qualified support from the key player, the German chancellor, Angela Merkel.

As national heads of government held a Brussels summit to consider their options after a tumultuous European election that was tantamount to a vote of no confidence in many of the leaders, Cameron attacked the EU as being "too big, too bossy, too interfering".

The fallout from the weekend elections began to hit politics across the continent when a senior member of the German government labelled France's Front National (FN) "fascist", a description that was echoed by a senior member of the commission, following the FN's rout of the mainstream parties in the ballot in France.

Europe's Christian Democrats emerged as the biggest caucus in the new parliament and the main parliamentary leaders on Tuesday claimed that as a mandate for their contender, Jean-Claude Juncker, the former prime minister of Luxembourg, to be nominated as next head of the commission, a choice vehemently opposed by Cameron.

The parliamentary leaders demanded that the summit rubber stamp that nomination. Cameron was joined by the Hungarian and Swedish prime ministers in rejecting Juncker.

"Europe cannot shrug off theses results. We need an approach that recognises that Europe should concentrate on what matters, on growth and jobs and not try and do so much," said Cameron.

"We need an approach that recognises that Brussels has got too big, too bossy, too interfering. We need more for nation states. It should be nation states wherever possible and Europe only where necessary. Of course we need people running these organisations that really understand that and can build a Europe that is about openness, competitiveness and flexibility, not about the past."

In the past 48 hours, Cameron has phoned several leaders, including Angela Merkel of Germany, in an attempt to build a "stop Juncker" coalition. Merkel hedged her bets while declaring that Juncker was her favoured candidate. But she also strongly rejected the ultimatum from the parliamentary leaders, warning of a "catastrophe" if the national governments bowed to the pressure.

She made clear that the leaders would not be rushed into any decisions demanded by the parliament, saying it would be the end of next month at the earliest before a proposal was made. While declaring her support for Juncker, she also signalled many reasons why he might not secure the post.

"Jean-Claude Juncker is our top candidate," she said. "But firstly it is about content. We know we can't manage this alone, but need a coalition."

Parliamentary leaders of five of the seven main voting blocs insisted that Juncker be charged with trying to cobble together a majority supporting him as president of the commission. But it is up to the national leaders, not the parliament, to propose a new commission president. Merkel emphasised that the decisions deciding a policy programme for the next five years and that too much was at stake. "Thoroughness, not speed" was the main thing, she said.

She also said that the leaders had to cooperate well over that period, signaling she did not want to isolate Cameron but would seek a consensus on who should get the job.

The parliament's move represented the first gambit in what promises to be an exhausting protracted battle between rival EU institutions over who gets to decide the next commission president.

The Hungarian prime minister, Viktor Orban, said Juncker could "definitely not" get the job. Cameron was also supported by the Swedish leader, Frederik Reinfeldt. But Cameron cannot veto the choice, which is carried by the majority.

Cameron and the French president, François Hollande, led their parties to historic defeats at the hands of the extreme right in Britain and France and appeared to be in a weak position at the summit following the disastrous outcome.

Recrimination and anxiety among the EU's elite surfaced particularly over developments in France.

Speaking at a conference in Berlin, Wolfgang Schäuble, the German finance minister and one of the most influential politicians in the EU, deplored the outcome of the European election in France where Marine Le Pen's FN made its biggest breakthrough to win the ballot with 25% of the vote.

"A quarter of the electorate voted not for a rightwing party but for a fascist, extremist party," said Schäuble.

It is not clear how the remarks will be received in France. Relations between Paris and Berlin have been frosty since Hollande was elected president two years ago, with much of the French elite bridling at the perceived hegemony of Berlin at the height of the euro crisis. Le Pen has previously gone to court in France seeking to ban her party being labelled "fascist". She lost.

Le Pen's current ascendancy contrasts with the dire state of the mainstream parties in France. The leader of the Gaullist centre-right UMP, Jean-François Copé, resigned on Tuesday due to sleaze allegations and the party appears to be in meltdown, while Hollande's governing socialists sank to 14% in the European election, their worst ever performance.

The attack on the FN was taken up by Viviane Reding, the vice-president of the European commission. Asked by a Swiss television station whether the FN's triumph imperilled democracy in Europe, she responded: "It is absolutely dangerous, like all fascism."

While neo-fascists from Greece, Hungary and Germany won seats in the Strasbourg parliament, the far right also scored dramatic victories in Britain and Denmark and did well in Austria.

On the other side of the political spectrum, the hard left also won the election in Greece, did well in Ireland and boosted its presence in several countries. Reding branded some of them as fascist, too. "There is also the fascism of the left which will be in the parliament."

Guardian
 
Cameron and a handful of other government leaders show their true colours by opposing democracy and pandering to the far-right:
They oppose Juncker, but how does that equate pandering to the far-right?:confused:

Juncker is Merkel's man. That's hardly a lefty position. This is a scrap between heads of government to the right.

I oppose the problem that German thinking about the economy of the EU has been mostly crap so far, and Merkel is a big part of the problem. As a default starting position, I implicitly distrust Juncker for that reason alone.:scan:
 
Well, Juncker pretty much gave the soundbyte/signal for what followed. Recall the "the Game is Over" as his reply to the (blown-up, as is investigated since forever) report by that freak pm we had in 2009, about the debt.

That debt, even blown up statistically, was less than 90% of the GDP. Recall how much the debt is now? Juncker was/is just another part of what is going on.
 
Cameron and a handful of other government leaders show their true colours by opposing democracy and pandering to the far-right:

Not that I am a fan of Cameron, but claiming that his opinion on the head of the European commission is anti-democratic is a bit odd. One of the things that gets me about the EU is that the more power an organisation has the LESS democratic it is (European parliament < European commission < Council of ministers).
 
They oppose Juncker, but how does that equate pandering to the far-right?:confused:

Cameron basically claims that the increase in vote for far-right/populists means that the voters have rejected "federalism" (which Juncker supposedly represents) and that the EU should now "downsize".

This sound to me as pandering to the far-right and adopting their interpretation of the election result. In reality, there is still a solid pro-European majority in the European Parliament, a fact Cameron fails to mention.

Juncker is Merkel's man. That's hardly a lefty position. This is a scrap between heads of government to the right.

I oppose the problem that German thinking about the economy of the EU has been mostly crap so far, and Merkel is a big part of the problem. As a default starting position, I implicitly distrust Juncker for that reason alone.:scan:

Not that I am a fan of Cameron, but claiming that his opinion on the head of the European commission is anti-democratic is a bit odd. One of the things that gets me about the EU is that the more power an organisation has the LESS democratic it is (European parliament < European commission < Council of ministers).

Juncker has "won" the election. He should, given that he manages to secure a solid coalition in the EP, be given the right to assemble the European Commission. If the heads of governments disregard the vote, they are against democracy and in fact saying that political realities in the EP are irrelevant to them.

What the heads of governments should do now, if they want to boost the EU's democratic legitimacy, is to get out together in front of the cameras and say "The voters have spoken, the EPP is the strongest party, we will accept the candidate for the European Commission president who is presented to us by the European Parliament."

In reality, they reverted back to the very thing that alienates Europeans: they hide behind close doors and plot how best to look after their narrow self-interest, in complete disregard of the election that has only just ended.

Way to go :shake:
 
Juncker has "won" the election. He should, given that he manages to secure a solid coalition in the EP, be given the right to assemble the European Commission. If the heads of governments disregard the vote, they are against democracy and in fact saying that political realities in the EP are irrelevant to them.

What the heads of governments should do now, if they want to boost the EU's democratic legitimacy, is to get out together in front of the cameras and say "The voters have spoken, the EPP is the strongest party, we will accept the candidate for the European Commission president who is presented to us by the European Parliament."

In reality, they reverted back to the very thing that alienates Europeans: they hide behind close doors and plot how best to look after their narrow self-interest, in complete disregard of the election that has only just ended.

Way to go :shake:

I am not really up on how this all works, but the impression I had was that the council of ministers make a decision between them about who heads the European Commission. A recent change is that they have to consider the opinion of the EP, but are not beholden to it. No-one outside the council of ministers votes on the post, and that vote (if it is a vote) has not yet happened. ICBW.
 
They oppose Juncker, but how does that equate pandering to the far-right?:confused:

Propaganda tactic. The far right is scary, therefore everyone against EU federalist is to be labeled "far-right"...
It may backfire badly. Because the EU is, objectively, creating problems for a majority of the population of its member countries, and being recognized as such. The far-right got the results it got because of the EU. If the far-right is painted as the ones who oppose the EU, then the far-right will continue to grow... and the EU will fall anyway in the end.
 
Propaganda tactic. The far right is scary, therefore everyone against EU federalist is to be labeled "far-right"...
It may backfire badly. Because the EU is, objectively, creating problems for a majority of the population of its member countries, and being recognized as such. The far-right got the results it got because of the EU. If the far-right is painted as the ones who oppose the EU, then the far-right will continue to grow... and the EU will fall anyway in the end.

Says it all. This kind of result in a euro election would never happen prior to 2010-2009. The eu brought this by itself, and i doubt it happened due to negligence.
 
I am not really up on how this all works, but the impression I had was that the council of ministers make a decision between them about who heads the European Commission. A recent change is that they have to consider the opinion of the EP, but are not beholden to it. No-one outside the council of ministers votes on the post, and that vote (if it is a vote) has not yet happened. ICBW.

They should take the EP elections into consideration — not least because if they refuse to heed the proposal of the Parliament, the parliament will not approve the Commission, which is fully within its power.

So, the heads of member states (=the Council) can either shut up and nominate the guy the EP chooses for the job, or face the embarrassment when the guy they choose in spite of the Parliament doesn't get approved in the Parliament. Which would basically lead to a deadlock and a repeat of the whole procedure.

For the sake of Europe, it would be better if they avoided such troubles.
 
Glad I don't actively consume any news media anymore. For a press bureau that is supposed to be respectable, the article's headline is of Daily Fail standards.

Wow.
That's it?
Your only criticism of the news is the title?
 
Yeah. I was going to comment on that.

To be honest, I couldn't see anything wrong with the headline, either. It seemed fairly relevant from a UK, and French, perspective. Though clearly it hasn't caused a major catastrophe in the EP. Yet.
 
Jean Quatremer blog on French daily Liberation :

"[UK Prime Minister] David Cameron finds the EU 'too bossy'... but he firmly rejects the idea that the European Parliament should choose the president of the Commission... The most astonishing thing is that he has the support of Sweden, Denmark and the Netherlands - three countries which like to think of themselves as paragons of democracy. It just doesn't make any sense."

Exactly.
 
The European Parliament should refuse to approve anyone but Juncker, his party won the largest share of the votes.
It strangely makes a mockery of both the democratic legitimacy of the EU and the rubbish about the EU dictating to the member states if anyone else gets the job.
 
Surely, "democracy" means that they should accept a candidate put forward by the majority, but simply by a plurality? That might to turn out to be the same thing, but not necessarily so.
 


From the article:

EU leaders meeting in Brussels on Tuesday (27 May) are still digesting the result of EU elections, which saw anti-establishment parties winning in
Britain, France, Belgium, Greece, and Denmark and making gains in several other countries.

Commenting on the outcome, which saw the far-right National Front scoop most of the French votes on Sunday, President Francois Hollande said it reflects
"distrust in Europe and a fear of decline
".
...
Reformist rhetoric came also from Prime Minister David Cameron of Britain, where the anti-EU and anti-immigrant United Kingdom Independence Party
won the elections for the first time in its history.
...
Earlier in the day, Cameron told the BBC that he "absolutely received and understood" the message from the EU elections: "People are deeply disillusioned
with the EU. They don't feel the current arrangements are working well enough for Britain and they want change
."

...

Denmark's Prime Minister Helle Thorning-Schmidt, also a Socialist and a potential candidate for an EU top post, is coming to Brussels in a weakened position,
as her party was defeated by the nationalist, anti-immigrant Danish People's Party, which won the elections on Sunday.
...
As for the DPP, its lead MEP Morten Messerschmidt said that they want to "pull Europe in another direction, namely in the British direction".
He said Cameron's party was a potential partner in the European Parliament.

In Greece, where the left-wing, anti-establishement Syriza party came in first, the Prime Minister said he sees no need
for early elections as demanded by Syriza leader Alexis Tsipras.
...
Commenting on the outcome of the EU elections, Karel Lannoo from the Brussels-based Centre for European Policy Studies,
told this website it was "a disaster for Europe" and a reaction to the intergovernmentalism and backroom deals which became the norm during the euro crisis.
...
For his part, the outgoing head of the EU commission, Jose Manuel Barroso, told a European Central Bank conference in Portugal that he is "extremely concerned"
by the vote result and blamed leaders for being complicit in stirring up anti-European sentiments.

"If you spend all week blaming Europe, you can't ask people to vote for Europe on Sunday," he said, according to the Financial Times
.



Source:http://euobserver.com/eu-elections/124370


Democracy, ain't it grand? :goodjob:
Except when the vote goes against your side. :lol:
 
What has me puzzled about UKIP is this:

So, Nigel Farage and his cronies have got themselves elected to the EP, seemingly as a springboard to getting elected to Parliament in the next general election.

How is he going to translate this one issue party into a credible alternative to the next Conservative or Labour government?

As soon as the mainstream parties take on board the public inclination to euroscepticism, isn't Nigel dead in the water?
 
Because they represents Europe's past. Any notions that the nationalists have changed and that fragmented Europe under their leadership would be different than the pre-EU Europe is an absurd one.

If having unelected people in the Comission and the Council taking over the economy of entire countries and (un)controling even more nations' borders having causing misery on milions of people because of these policies is Europe's future then f**k this future.

Suppose they get what they want. For now, the nationalists/right-wing populists/fascists are more or less united on the platform of their hatred of the EU and immigration/anti-globalization. So the EU collapses, they seize control of their respective member states - then what?

They turn on each other, and we're back in 1930s. They offer ZERO alternative to the EU. They have no concept of an alternate route for Europe to take if it abandoned integration on the EU platform.

We don't have an alternaive because we only offer alternatives for our respectuive nation-states (or futurible nation-states as in Catalonia's case). We don't care about Europe, that's not our framework. It's like judging the EU because of the results of its policies in Oceania.

This is what the mainstream need to explain to the voters. Stop being afraid of the nationalists/populists, stop trying to accommodate them - confront them!

Every election show that the mainstream voter is moving towards our positions at an speeding pace. It's not that they're affraid of us but that they're beginning to agree with us at a continent-wide scale. So please, keep us calling nazis, populists, far-rioght extremists, bone-heads and other "praises" like these that have proven to be so efficient at counter our arguments. You're doing a great job.
 
What has me puzzled about UKIP is this:

So, Nigel Farage and his cronies have got themselves elected to the EP, seemingly as a springboard to getting elected to Parliament in the next general election.

How is he going to translate this one issue party into a credible alternative to the next Conservative or Labour government?

As soon as the mainstream parties take on board the public inclination to euroscepticism, isn't Nigel dead in the water?
He's suggested that he'd be open to coalition with the Conservatives, although I doubt the Conservatives would accept that. They're struggling to balance both centre-right liberal voters and their traditionalist base, and coalition with UKIP would alienate the former while risking validating UKIP in the eyes of the latter. (I'm not sure if Farage knows this. Sometimes he seems like a savvy political operative, sometimes he seems dim but lucky.) The likely outcome would be UKIP playing a role similar to the Unionists in Northern Ireland (and, formerly, in Scotland), exchanging support on the majority of affairs for the indulgence on their key issues. Possibly more so, in fact, because the Unionist parties have tended to lean "One Nation" on economic issues, but the Kippers are unapologetic Thatcherites.
 
Back
Top Bottom