On 08/03/2022 21:52, Java Jive wrote:
> On 08/03/2022 20:59, Robin wrote:
>>
>> On 08/03/2022 17:12, Java Jive wrote:
>>>
>>> Doubtless you can read Wikipedia as well as me.  His is clearly not
>>> an English name, and has been suggested to be French Huguenot in
>>> origin, but even if it's just the two great-great-grandparents, that
>>> still makes his lying about Europe somewhat hypocritical, don't you
>>> think?
>>
>> You made a a plain statement of fact as to his ancestors which you
>> cannot now back up.
>
> Nonsense, you yourself have admitted them to exist:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigel_Farage#Ancestry_and_childhood
>
>> The possible Huguenot origin of the name is irrelevant. It should be
>> obvious to the meanest intellect that a surname may be inherited from
>> a person who makes up a tiny fraction of his ancestry from 300 years ago.
>
> A *minimum* of 2 x great great grandparents is 2 / 2^4 which is 1/8, not
> a tiny fraction of his ancestry.
>
>> And no, I don't agree that it's OK for you to lie about someone just
>> because you don't like his views.
>
> I didn't lie, as you yourself admitted up thread.
>
>> (Also, while I am no fan of his, like others that I recall him
>> slagging of EU institutions, leaders and officials but not countries
>> or peoples or the whole continent.)
>
> The EU is part of Europe, so in lying about the EU, he is inevitably
> lying about Europe as well.
>
>> But I do hate hypocrisy.
>
> Don't look in a mirror then.
>

The most charitable interpretation I can put on that is that you do not
understand the difference between "where your ancestors came from" and
"where some of your ancestors came from"; or between the political and
economic union that is the EU and its member States and populations.

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On 08/03/2022 21:59, Java Jive wrote:
> On 08/03/2022 20:59, Indy Jess John wrote:
>>
>> On 08/03/2022 17:23, Java Jive wrote:
>>>
>>> On 08/03/2022 16:28, MB wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 08/03/2022 15:24, Sn!pe wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> None of that implies that I in any way owe allegiance to the
>>>>> ~political construct~ that is the undemocratic, unelected,
>>>>> administered by patronage, unaccountable to its "subjects"
>>>>> European Union.  Oh dear me no, not at all.
>>>
>>> None of that implies that you have the right to repeat the above lies
>>> about the EU yet again.  Do yourself a favour, and learn how the EU
>>> really works.  It is as democratic, probably more so, than any
>>> government in the UK.
>>
>> The man in the street elects the MPs who form the Parliament from
>> which is drawn the UK Government.  The UK Parliament can develop policy.
>>
>> The Man in the street elects MEPs who form the European Parliament.
>> The European Parliament cannot develop policy, it can only discuss and
>> vote on policies presented to them by the European Commission.
>
> Nonsense, reread the links given, which I note that you've snipped.  The
> Commission is the EU's equivalent of our civil service, and as such it
> is responsible for drafting legislation requested by the democratically
> elected European Parliament, and by the European Council, which itself
> is composed of the democratically elected leaders of member nations.  If
> this is somehow undemocratic, how come you're not complaining that our
> civil service is not democratically elected?
>

The Commission is now like the CS /plus/ Ministers. And unlike
Ministers here, only the Commission can start the formal legislative
process.

Your own link has it right:

"The European Commission (EC) is the executive branch of the European
Union (EU). It operates as a cabinet government, with 27 members of the
Commission (informally known as "Commissioners") headed by a
President.It includes an administrative body of about 32,000 European
civil servants....The governmental powers of the Commission have been
such that some, including former Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt,
have suggested changing its name to the "European Government", calling
the present name of the Commission "ridiculous"."

and

"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."

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On 08/03/2022 22:38, Robin wrote:
> On 08/03/2022 21:59, Java Jive wrote:
>> On 08/03/2022 20:59, Indy Jess John wrote:
>>>
>>> On 08/03/2022 17:23, Java Jive wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 08/03/2022 16:28, MB wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 08/03/2022 15:24, Sn!pe wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> None of that implies that I in any way owe allegiance to the
>>>>>> ~political construct~ that is the undemocratic, unelected,
>>>>>> administered by patronage, unaccountable to its "subjects"
>>>>>> European Union. Oh dear me no, not at all.
>>>>
>>>> None of that implies that you have the right to repeat the above lies
>>>> about the EU yet again. Do yourself a favour, and learn how the EU
>>>> really works. It is as democratic, probably more so, than any
>>>> government in the UK.
>>>
>>> The man in the street elects the MPs who form the Parliament from
>>> which is drawn the UK Government. The UK Parliament can develop policy.
>>>
>>> The Man in the street elects MEPs who form the European Parliament.
>>> The European Parliament cannot develop policy, it can only discuss and
>>> vote on policies presented to them by the European Commission.
>>
>> Nonsense, reread the links given, which I note that you've snipped. The
>> Commission is the EU's equivalent of our civil service, and as such it
>> is responsible for drafting legislation requested by the democratically
>> elected European Parliament, and by the European Council, which itself
>> is composed of the democratically elected leaders of member nations. If
>> this is somehow undemocratic, how come you're not complaining that our
>> civil service is not democratically elected?
>>
>
> The Commission is now like the CS /plus/ Ministers. And unlike
> Ministers here, only the Commission can start the formal legislative
> process.
>
> Your own link has it right:
>
> "The European Commission (EC) is the executive branch of the European
> Union (EU). It operates as a cabinet government, with 27 members of the
> Commission (informally known as "Commissioners") headed by a
> President.It includes an administrative body of about 32,000 European
> civil servants....The governmental powers of the Commission have been
> such that some, including former Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt,
> have suggested changing its name to the "European Government", calling
> the present name of the Commission "ridiculous"."
>
> and
>
> "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."
>
>
My point, expressed rather more thoroughly.

Jim

On 08/03/2022 21:46, Java Jive wrote:
> On 08/03/2022 20:52, Indy Jess John wrote:
>>
>> On 08/03/2022 17:12, Java Jive wrote:
>>>
>>> Doubtless you can read Wikipedia as well as me. His is clearly not an
>>> English name, and has been suggested to be French Huguenot in origin,
>>> but even if it's just the two great-great-grandparents, that still makes
>>> his lying about Europe somewhat hypocritical, don't you think?
>>
>> He didn't lie about Europe, because his beef was with the EU and not the
>> member states themselves.
>
> The EU is part of Europe, so in lying about the EU, he is inevitably
> lying about Europe as well.
>
Did you read that before you sent it? It is a complete non-sequitur.

My eyebrows are part of my body. Anyone complaining about my eyebrows
being too bushy is not automatically criticising the rest of my person.

Don't forget that Switzerland is part of Europe and not part of the EU.
They are different entities.

Jim

On 08/03/2022 23:38, Indy Jess John wrote:
> On 08/03/2022 21:46, Java Jive wrote:
>> On 08/03/2022 20:52, Indy Jess John wrote:
>>>
>>> On 08/03/2022 17:12, Java Jive wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Doubtless you can read Wikipedia as well as me.  His is clearly not an
>>>> English name, and has been suggested to be French Huguenot in origin,
>>>> but even if it's just the two great-great-grandparents, that still
>>>> makes
>>>> his lying about Europe somewhat hypocritical, don't you think?
>>>
>>> He didn't lie about Europe, because his beef was with the EU and not the
>>> member states themselves.
>>
>> The EU is part of Europe, so in lying about the EU, he is inevitably
>> lying about Europe as well.
>
> Did you read that before you sent it?  It is a complete non-sequitur.

Yes. I stand by it.

> My eyebrows are part of my body.  Anyone complaining about my eyebrows
> being too bushy is not automatically criticising the rest of my person.

But they *are* complaining about your person.

> Don't forget that Switzerland is part of Europe and not part of the EU.
> They are different entities.

Just as your hands are not your eyebrows.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 08/03/2022 22:08, Robin wrote:
> On 08/03/2022 21:52, Java Jive wrote:
>> On 08/03/2022 20:59, Robin wrote:
>>>
>>> On 08/03/2022 17:12, Java Jive wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Doubtless you can read Wikipedia as well as me.  His is clearly not
>>>> an English name, and has been suggested to be French Huguenot in
>>>> origin, but even if it's just the two great-great-grandparents, that
>>>> still makes his lying about Europe somewhat hypocritical, don't you
>>>> think?
>>>
>>> You made a a plain statement of fact as to his ancestors which you
>>> cannot now back up.
>>
>> Nonsense, you yourself have admitted them to exist:
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigel_Farage#Ancestry_and_childhood
>>
>>> The possible Huguenot origin of the name is irrelevant. It should be
>>> obvious to the meanest intellect that a surname may be inherited from
>>> a person who makes up a tiny fraction of his ancestry from 300 years
>>> ago.
>>
>> A *minimum* of 2 x great great grandparents is 2 / 2^4 which is 1/8,
>> not a tiny fraction of his ancestry.
>>
>>> And no, I don't agree that it's OK for you to lie about someone just
>>> because you don't like his views.
>>
>> I didn't lie, as you yourself admitted up thread.
>>
>>> (Also, while I am no fan of his, like others that I recall him
>>> slagging of EU institutions, leaders and officials but not countries
>>> or peoples or the whole continent.)
>>
>> The EU is part of Europe, so in lying about the EU, he is inevitably
>> lying about Europe as well.
>>
>>> But I do hate hypocrisy.
>>
>> Don't look in a mirror then.
>
> The most charitable interpretation I can put on that is that you do not
> understand the difference between "where your ancestors came from" and
> "where some of your ancestors came from"; or between the political and
> economic union that is the EU and its member States and populations.

What difference does it make in kind if he slags off two of his
ancestors or more of them? And if he slags off the EU, de ipso facto he
is also slagging off Europe.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 08/03/2022 22:38, Robin wrote:
>
> On 08/03/2022 21:59, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> On 08/03/2022 20:59, Indy Jess John wrote:
>>>
>>> The man in the street elects the MPs who form the Parliament from
>>> which is drawn the UK Government.  The UK Parliament can develop policy.
>>>
>>> The Man in the street elects MEPs who form the European Parliament.
>>> The European Parliament cannot develop policy, it can only discuss
>>> and vote on policies presented to them by the European Commission.
>>
>> Nonsense, reread the links given, which I note that you've snipped.
>> The Commission is the EU's equivalent of our civil service, and as
>> such it is responsible for drafting legislation requested by the
>> democratically elected European Parliament, and by the European
>> Council, which itself is composed of the democratically elected
>> leaders of member nations.  If this is somehow undemocratic, how come
>> you're not complaining that our civil service is not democratically
>> elected?
>
> The Commission is now like the CS /plus/ Ministers.  And unlike
> Ministers here, only the Commission can start the formal legislative
> process.
>
> Your own link has it right:
>
> "The European Commission (EC) is the executive branch of the European
> Union (EU). It operates as a cabinet government, with 27 members of the
> Commission (informally known as "Commissioners") headed by a
> President.It includes an administrative body of about 32,000 European
> civil servants....The governmental powers of the Commission have been
> such that some, including former Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt,
> have suggested changing its name to the "European Government", calling
> the present name of the Commission "ridiculous"."
>
> and
>
> "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."

Selective quoting, the next section reads [my caps]: "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 ON THE BASIS OF THESE PROPOSALS. This monopoly is designed to
ensure coordinated and coherent drafting of EU law.[48][49]"

So, although the Commission alone can initiate legislation, there would
be little point in it doing so against the wishes of either the Council
or the Parliament, because, just as in the UK, these democratically
elected, one directly the other indirectly, bodies are required to
ratify all law drafted by the Commission, so why would the Commission
waste their own time and create a rod for their own backs by drafting
unpopular laws that were never likely to get past the democratic process
of ratification? Which was exactly the sort of crap being claimed up
thread, and that I was debunking, let's look at it again: "the political
construct that is the undemocratic, unelected, administered by
patronage, unaccountable to its "subjects" European Union." Nowhere is
that borne out by the documents linked. It's just another Europhobic lie.

To see how the EU actually works in practice, take, for example, the
proposed law to enforce USB-C charging cables for small electronic
devices. This began as long ago as 2014 through a majority vote in the
European Parliament ...

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20140307IPR38122/meps-push-for-common-charger-for-all-mobile-phones

.... and resulted in a voluntary Memorandum of Understanding. However,
recently the MEPs decided that this voluntary arrangement was not moving
things on completely and quickly enough, and requested the Commission to
produce legislation ...

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-9-2020-0024_EN.html

.... so the Commission went and produced a report ...

https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/90e9a07d-1054-11ec-9151-01aa75ed71a1

.... and then a proposal for an appropriate amendment to an existing
directive to cover the issue ...

https://ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/46755

.... which is about where we are at now, legislation is expected to come
into force in 2024.

And, remember, this arose from an initiative by democratically elected
MEPs, not the Commission. You could argue that it's taken too long to
get there, but that was mainly because it was decided to try a voluntary
approach first, and the reluctance of one particular major brand to
comply with the voluntary agreement.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On Tue 08/03/2022 17:32, williamwright wrote:
> On 08/03/2022 09:45, Woody wrote:
>> He said right at the beginning that for reasons he would not go into
>> he was broadcasting from Spain yesterday evening. I guess they would
>> have use Zoom or something similar to save cost?
>
> Oh, I didn't hear that. It did sound as if they had a mike picking up
> the sound from a crap telly!
>
> Bill

Crikey Bill, you've really lit the fuse here!

On 09/03/2022 01:32, Java Jive wrote:
> On 08/03/2022 23:38, Indy Jess John wrote:
>> On 08/03/2022 21:46, Java Jive wrote:
>>> On 08/03/2022 20:52, Indy Jess John wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 08/03/2022 17:12, Java Jive wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Doubtless you can read Wikipedia as well as me. His is clearly not an
>>>>> English name, and has been suggested to be French Huguenot in origin,
>>>>> but even if it's just the two great-great-grandparents, that still
>>>>> makes
>>>>> his lying about Europe somewhat hypocritical, don't you think?
>>>>
>>>> He didn't lie about Europe, because his beef was with the EU and not the
>>>> member states themselves.
>>>
>>> The EU is part of Europe, so in lying about the EU, he is inevitably
>>> lying about Europe as well.
>>
>> Did you read that before you sent it? It is a complete non-sequitur.
>
> Yes. I stand by it.
>
>> My eyebrows are part of my body. Anyone complaining about my eyebrows
>> being too bushy is not automatically criticising the rest of my person.
>
> But they *are* complaining about your person.
>
>> Don't forget that Switzerland is part of Europe and not part of the EU.
>> They are different entities.
>
> Just as your hands are not your eyebrows.
>
I won't trim it. I will let others recognise how ridiculous your
position is.

Jim

On 09/03/2022 01:35, Java Jive wrote:
> On 08/03/2022 22:08, Robin wrote:
>> On 08/03/2022 21:52, Java Jive wrote:
>>> On 08/03/2022 20:59, Robin wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 08/03/2022 17:12, Java Jive wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Doubtless you can read Wikipedia as well as me. His is clearly not
>>>>> an English name, and has been suggested to be French Huguenot in
>>>>> origin, but even if it's just the two great-great-grandparents, that
>>>>> still makes his lying about Europe somewhat hypocritical, don't you
>>>>> think?
>>>>
>>>> You made a a plain statement of fact as to his ancestors which you
>>>> cannot now back up.
>>>
>>> Nonsense, you yourself have admitted them to exist:
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigel_Farage#Ancestry_and_childhood
>>>
>>>> The possible Huguenot origin of the name is irrelevant. It should be
>>>> obvious to the meanest intellect that a surname may be inherited from
>>>> a person who makes up a tiny fraction of his ancestry from 300 years
>>>> ago.
>>>
>>> A *minimum* of 2 x great great grandparents is 2 / 2^4 which is 1/8,
>>> not a tiny fraction of his ancestry.
>>>
>>>> And no, I don't agree that it's OK for you to lie about someone just
>>>> because you don't like his views.
>>>
>>> I didn't lie, as you yourself admitted up thread.
>>>
>>>> (Also, while I am no fan of his, like others that I recall him
>>>> slagging of EU institutions, leaders and officials but not countries
>>>> or peoples or the whole continent.)
>>>
>>> The EU is part of Europe, so in lying about the EU, he is inevitably
>>> lying about Europe as well.
>>>
>>>> But I do hate hypocrisy.
>>>
>>> Don't look in a mirror then.
>>
>> The most charitable interpretation I can put on that is that you do not
>> understand the difference between "where your ancestors came from" and
>> "where some of your ancestors came from"; or between the political and
>> economic union that is the EU and its member States and populations.
>
> What difference does it make in kind if he slags off two of his
> ancestors or more of them? And if he slags off the EU, de ipso facto he
> is also slagging off Europe.
>
There are none so blind as those who will not see.

..

On 09/03/2022 03:07, Java Jive wrote:
> On 08/03/2022 22:38, Robin wrote:
>>
>> On 08/03/2022 21:59, Java Jive wrote:
>>>
>>> On 08/03/2022 20:59, Indy Jess John wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The man in the street elects the MPs who form the Parliament from
>>>> which is drawn the UK Government. The UK Parliament can develop policy.
>>>>
>>>> The Man in the street elects MEPs who form the European Parliament.
>>>> The European Parliament cannot develop policy, it can only discuss
>>>> and vote on policies presented to them by the European Commission.
>>>
>>> Nonsense, reread the links given, which I note that you've snipped.
>>> The Commission is the EU's equivalent of our civil service, and as
>>> such it is responsible for drafting legislation requested by the
>>> democratically elected European Parliament, and by the European
>>> Council, which itself is composed of the democratically elected
>>> leaders of member nations. If this is somehow undemocratic, how come
>>> you're not complaining that our civil service is not democratically
>>> elected?
>>
>> The Commission is now like the CS /plus/ Ministers. And unlike
>> Ministers here, only the Commission can start the formal legislative
>> process.
>>
>> Your own link has it right:
>>
>> "The European Commission (EC) is the executive branch of the European
>> Union (EU). It operates as a cabinet government, with 27 members of the
>> Commission (informally known as "Commissioners") headed by a
>> President.It includes an administrative body of about 32,000 European
>> civil servants....The governmental powers of the Commission have been
>> such that some, including former Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt,
>> have suggested changing its name to the "European Government", calling
>> the present name of the Commission "ridiculous"."
>>
>> and
>>
>> "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."
>
> Selective quoting, the next section reads [my caps]: "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 ON THE BASIS OF THESE PROPOSALS. This monopoly is designed to
> ensure coordinated and coherent drafting of EU law.[48][49]"
>
> So, although the Commission alone can initiate legislation, there would
> be little point in it doing so against the wishes of either the Council
> or the Parliament, because, just as in the UK, these democratically
> elected, one directly the other indirectly, bodies are required to
> ratify all law drafted by the Commission, so why would the Commission
> waste their own time and create a rod for their own backs by drafting
> unpopular laws that were never likely to get past the democratic process
> of ratification? Which was exactly the sort of crap being claimed up
> thread, and that I was debunking, let's look at it again: "the political
> construct that is the undemocratic, unelected, administered by
> patronage, unaccountable to its "subjects" European Union." Nowhere is
> that borne out by the documents linked. It's just another Europhobic lie.
>
> To see how the EU actually works in practice, take, for example, the
> proposed law to enforce USB-C charging cables for small electronic
> devices. This began as long ago as 2014 through a majority vote in the
> European Parliament ...
>
> https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20140307IPR38122/meps-push-for-common-charger-for-all-mobile-phones
>
> ... and resulted in a voluntary Memorandum of Understanding. However,
> recently the MEPs decided that this voluntary arrangement was not moving
> things on completely and quickly enough, and requested the Commission to
> produce legislation ...
>
> https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-9-2020-0024_EN.html
>
> ... so the Commission went and produced a report ...
>
> https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/90e9a07d-1054-11ec-9151-01aa75ed71a1
>
> ... and then a proposal for an appropriate amendment to an existing
> directive to cover the issue ...
>
> https://ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/46755
>
> ... which is about where we are at now, legislation is expected to come
> into force in 2024.
>
> And, remember, this arose from an initiative by democratically elected
> MEPs, not the Commission. You could argue that it's taken too long to
> get there, but that was mainly because it was decided to try a voluntary
> approach first, and the reluctance of one particular major brand to
> comply with the voluntary agreement.
>
Hoist by your own petard!

In the UK the electorate vote for an MP. That MP goes to the House of
Commons which is an executive organisation which develops and issues
legislation.

The electorate also vote for MEPs who take their place in the European
Parliament. From your example above the MEPs only suggest to the
Commission what should be done they do not issue legislation they have
developed. Thus the European Parliament is not an executive
organisation. The MEPs are elected, but those elected only form a
lobbying organisation, under a fancy name to fool gullible people like
you into believing they have more authority than they actually have.

Jim

On 09/03/2022 10:07, Tweed wrote:
> I’m pro EU. However, there is a fundamental democratic deficit issue. With
> our own parliament we can, and do, chuck the government out when the
> population has had enough with the current lot. This is in practical terms
> impossible with the EU structure as it currently is. Commissioners are,
> granted, sent by democratically elected governments, but each county’s
> electorate only has sway over their commissioner. (And those commissioners
> tend to be washed up politicians). Both the commission and the EU
> parliament are coalitions, and it’s almost impossible to throw the lot out.
> Fear of being ejected from office is one of the very few levers we have as
> citizens.

The EU structure can never work. The Commissioners are supposed to be
neutral but there are numerous example of them favouring their own
electorate, it happens everywhere to a certain extent but a Commissioner
has control over one area of government.

Also too remote from the electorate, I have a moderate interest in
politics but, like the majority of people, I have no idea who my MEP is.

On 09/03/2022 at 10:07, Tweed wrote:
> Commissioners are,
> granted, sent by democratically elected governments, but each county’s
> electorate only has sway over their commissioner.

Well, here, each constituency only has sway (if they have any) over
their elected MP. So maybe it's not that different.

> Both the commission and the EU
> parliament are coalitions, and it’s almost impossible to throw the
lot out

And Your point about coalitions is because it's PR, which we don't
happen to have here in the UK. And because of that, our representation
in our own parliament is overridden sometimes by a party which may have
received a rather small vote.

--
Wilf

On 09/03/2022 11:14, Wilf wrote:
> And Your point about coalitions is because it's PR, which we don't
> happen to have here in the UK. And because of that, our representation
> in our own parliament is overridden sometimes by a party which may have
> received a rather small vote.

Though the same happens in PR where a party with a very small vote if
brought into a coalition. In Scotland, the SNP has done a deal with the
Green Party which gives them a lot of power even though they received
few votes (and many hate them!).

On 09/03/2022 at 11:18, MB wrote:
> On 09/03/2022 11:14, Wilf wrote:
>> And Your point about coalitions is because it's PR, which we don't
>> happen to have here in the UK. And because of that, our representation
>> in our own parliament is overridden sometimes by a party which may have
>> received a rather small vote.
>
> Though the same happens in PR where a party with a very small vote if
> brought into a coalition. In Scotland, the SNP has done a deal with the
> Green Party which gives them a lot of power even though they received
> few votes (and many hate them!).

At least people know the potential score under PR. They know that,
however problematical coalition governments may be, they at least get
represented in parliament according to the proportion of their votes.
43.6% of voters voted for the Conservatives last time, yet they have an
overall majority of 80 in the Commons (over 55% of MPs).

--
Wilf

On 09/03/2022 09:33, Indy Jess John wrote:
> On 09/03/2022 03:07, Java Jive wrote:
>> On 08/03/2022 22:38, Robin wrote:
>>>
>>> On 08/03/2022 21:59, Java Jive wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 08/03/2022 20:59, Indy Jess John wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> The man in the street elects the MPs who form the Parliament from
>>>>> which is drawn the UK Government.  The UK Parliament can develop
>>>>> policy.
>>>>>
>>>>> The Man in the street elects MEPs who form the European Parliament.
>>>>> The European Parliament cannot develop policy, it can only discuss
>>>>> and vote on policies presented to them by the European Commission.
>>>>
>>>> Nonsense, reread the links given, which I note that you've snipped.
>>>> The Commission is the EU's equivalent of our civil service, and as
>>>> such it is responsible for drafting legislation requested by the
>>>> democratically elected European Parliament, and by the European
>>>> Council, which itself is composed of the democratically elected
>>>> leaders of member nations.  If this is somehow undemocratic, how come
>>>> you're not complaining that our civil service is not democratically
>>>> elected?
>>>
>>> The Commission is now like the CS /plus/ Ministers.  And unlike
>>> Ministers here, only the Commission can start the formal legislative
>>> process.
>>>
>>> Your own link has it right:
>>>
>>> "The European Commission (EC) is the executive branch of the European
>>> Union (EU). It operates as a cabinet government, with 27 members of the
>>> Commission (informally known as "Commissioners") headed by a
>>> President.It includes an administrative body of about 32,000 European
>>> civil servants....The governmental powers of the Commission have been
>>> such that some, including former Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt,
>>> have suggested changing its name to the "European Government", calling
>>> the present name of the Commission "ridiculous"."
>>>
>>> and
>>>
>>> "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."
>>
>> Selective quoting, the next section reads [my caps]: "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 ON THE BASIS OF THESE PROPOSALS. This monopoly is designed to
>> ensure coordinated and coherent drafting of EU law.[48][49]"
>>
>> So, although the Commission alone can initiate legislation, there would
>> be little point in it doing so against the wishes of either the Council
>> or the Parliament, because, just as in the UK, these democratically
>> elected, one directly the other indirectly, bodies are required to
>> ratify all law drafted by the Commission, so why would the Commission
>> waste their own time and create a rod for their own backs by drafting
>> unpopular laws that were never likely to get past the democratic process
>> of ratification?  Which was exactly the sort of crap being claimed up
>> thread, and that I was debunking, let's look at it again: "the political
>> construct that is the undemocratic, unelected, administered by
>> patronage, unaccountable to its "subjects" European Union."  Nowhere is
>> that borne out by the documents linked.  It's just another Europhobic
>> lie.
>>
>> To see how the EU actually works in practice, take, for example, the
>> proposed law to enforce USB-C charging cables for small electronic
>> devices.  This began as long ago as 2014 through a majority vote in the
>> European Parliament ...
>>
>> https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20140307IPR38122/meps-push-for-common-charger-for-all-mobile-phones
>>
>>
>> ... and resulted in a voluntary Memorandum of Understanding.  However,
>> recently the MEPs decided that this voluntary arrangement was not moving
>> things on completely and quickly enough, and requested the Commission to
>> produce legislation ...
>>
>> https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-9-2020-0024_EN.html
>>
>> ... so the Commission went and produced a report ...
>>
>> https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/90e9a07d-1054-11ec-9151-01aa75ed71a1
>>
>>
>> ... and then a proposal for an appropriate amendment to an existing
>> directive to cover the issue ...
>>
>> https://ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/46755
>>
>> ... which is about where we are at now, legislation is expected to come
>> into force in 2024.
>>
>> And, remember, this arose from an initiative by democratically elected
>> MEPs, not the Commission.  You could argue that it's taken too long to
>> get there, but that was mainly because it was decided to try a voluntary
>> approach first, and the reluctance of one particular major brand to
>> comply with the voluntary agreement.
>>
> Hoist by your own petard!

Not.

> In the UK the electorate vote for an MP. That MP goes to the House of
> Commons which is an executive organisation which develops and issues
> legislation.

Although it can do so, by Private Members' Bills, but see below, it
doesn't usually *draft* the legislation, rather its role is to ratify or
not legislation produced by others who are more experienced at that
particular job, our civil service. In this respect, there is very
little difference between the EU modus operandi and that of the UK
government. See the link already given:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament

"Therefore, while Parliament can amend and reject legislation, to make a
proposal for legislation, it needs the Commission to draft a bill before
anything can become law.[49] The value of such a power has been
questioned by noting that in the national legislatures of the member
states 85% of initiatives introduced without executive support fail to
become law.[50] Yet it has been argued by former Parliament president
Hans-Gert Pöttering that as the Parliament does have the right to ask
the Commission to draft such legislation, and as the Commission is
following Parliament's proposals more and more Parliament does have a de
facto right of legislative initiative.[7]"

> The electorate also vote for MEPs who take their place in the European
> Parliament.  From your example above the MEPs only suggest to the
> Commission what should be done they do not issue legislation they have
> developed.  Thus the European Parliament is not an executive
> organisation.  The MEPs are elected, but those elected only form a
> lobbying organisation, under a fancy name to fool gullible people like
> you into believing they have more authority than they actually have.

Nonsense, as demonstrated in the example I gave up thread, and the quote
immediately above, which continues into the next section:

"Legislative procedure

With each new treaty, the powers of the Parliament, in terms of its role
in the Union's legislative procedures, have expanded. The procedure
which has slowly become dominant is the "ordinary legislative procedure"
(previously named "codecision procedure"), which provides an equal
footing between Parliament and Council. In particular, under the
procedure, the Commission presents a proposal to Parliament and the
Council which can only become law if both agree on a text, which they do
(or not) through successive readings up to a maximum of three. In its
first reading, Parliament may send amendments to the Council which can
either adopt the text with those amendments or send back a "common
position". That position may either be approved by Parliament, or it may
reject the text by an absolute majority, causing it to fail, or it may
adopt further amendments, also by an absolute majority. If the Council
does not approve these, then a "Conciliation Committee" is formed. The
Committee is composed of the Council members plus an equal number of
MEPs who seek to agree a compromise. Once a position is agreed, it has
to be approved by Parliament, by a simple majority.[6][53] This is also
aided by Parliament's mandate as the only directly democratic
institution, which has given it leeway to have greater control over
legislation than other institutions, for example over its changes to the
Bolkestein directive in 2006.[34]"

On 09/03/2022 11:18, MB wrote:
>
> On 09/03/2022 11:14, Wilf wrote:
>>
>> And Your point about coalitions is because it's PR, which we don't
>> happen to have here in the UK.  And because of that, our representation
>> in our own parliament is overridden sometimes by a party which may have
>> received a rather small vote.
>
> Though the same happens in PR where a party with a very small vote if
> brought into a coalition. In Scotland, the SNP has done a deal with the
> Green Party which gives them a lot of power even though they received
> few votes (and many hate them!).

ITYM that a few bigots like yourself hate them, it's not a general trend
that I've noticed in Scotland. The Greens have 8 seats in the Scottish
Parliament, whereas they would have none on a constituency basis alone,
but, on such a basis, the SNP would have an overwhelming majority of 51,
so wouldn't need the support of the Greens anyway. As it is, with the
PR list seats, the SNP are one short of a majority and consequently have
to compromise with others to get legislation through.

Nobody I know in Scotland seems to think that's a bad thing:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-57047907

Constituencies Seats
SNP 62 64
Con 5 31
LD 4 4
Lab 2 22
Green 0 8

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 09/03/2022 08:08, Indy Jess John wrote:
>
> On 09/03/2022 01:35, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> What difference does it make in kind if he slags off two of his
>> ancestors or more of them?  And if he slags off the EU, de ipso facto he
>> is also slagging off Europe.
>
> There are none so blind as those who will not see.

Says the man with the white stick.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 09/03/2022 08:07, Indy Jess John wrote:
> On 09/03/2022 01:32, Java Jive wrote:
>> On 08/03/2022 23:38, Indy Jess John wrote:
>>> On 08/03/2022 21:46, Java Jive wrote:
>>>> On 08/03/2022 20:52, Indy Jess John wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 08/03/2022 17:12, Java Jive wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Doubtless you can read Wikipedia as well as me.  His is clearly
>>>>>> not an
>>>>>> English name, and has been suggested to be French Huguenot in origin,
>>>>>> but even if it's just the two great-great-grandparents, that still
>>>>>> makes
>>>>>> his lying about Europe somewhat hypocritical, don't you think?
>>>>>
>>>>> He didn't lie about Europe, because his beef was with the EU and
>>>>> not the
>>>>> member states themselves.
>>>>
>>>> The EU is part of Europe, so in lying about the EU, he is inevitably
>>>> lying about Europe as well.
>>>
>>> Did you read that before you sent it?  It is a complete non-sequitur.
>>
>> Yes.  I stand by it.
>>
>>> My eyebrows are part of my body.  Anyone complaining about my eyebrows
>>> being too bushy is not automatically criticising the rest of my person.
>>
>> But they *are* complaining about your person.
>>
>>> Don't forget that Switzerland is part of Europe and not part of the EU.
>>> They are different entities.
>>
>> Just as your hands are not your eyebrows.
>>
> I won't trim it. I will let others recognise how ridiculous your
> position is.

Ditto.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 09/03/2022 11:34, Wilf wrote:
> At least people know the potential score under PR. They know that,
> however problematical coalition governments may be, they at least get
> represented in parliament according to the proportion of their votes.
> 43.6% of voters voted for the Conservatives last time, yet they have an
> overall majority of 80 in the Commons (over 55% of MPs).

But under PR a small party that received few votes can hold virtually a
large party to ransom.

On Wed 09/03/2022 14:24, MB wrote:
> On 09/03/2022 11:34, Wilf wrote:
>> At least people know the potential score under PR.  They know that,
>> however problematical coalition governments may be, they at least get
>> represented in parliament according to the proportion of their votes.
>> 43.6% of voters voted for the Conservatives last time, yet they have an
>> overall majority of 80 in the Commons (over 55% of MPs).
>
> But under PR a small party that received few votes can hold virtually a
> large party to ransom.
>
>
>

Viz the Greens holding Merkel to ransom with the requirement to close
down all nuclear power generation - and look where that got them!

On 09/03/2022 11:51, Java Jive wrote:
> On 09/03/2022 09:33, Indy Jess John wrote:
>> On 09/03/2022 03:07, Java Jive wrote:
>>> On 08/03/2022 22:38, Robin wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 08/03/2022 21:59, Java Jive wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 08/03/2022 20:59, Indy Jess John wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The man in the street elects the MPs who form the Parliament from
>>>>>> which is drawn the UK Government. The UK Parliament can develop
>>>>>> policy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Man in the street elects MEPs who form the European Parliament.
>>>>>> The European Parliament cannot develop policy, it can only discuss
>>>>>> and vote on policies presented to them by the European Commission.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nonsense, reread the links given, which I note that you've snipped.
>>>>> The Commission is the EU's equivalent of our civil service, and as
>>>>> such it is responsible for drafting legislation requested by the
>>>>> democratically elected European Parliament, and by the European
>>>>> Council, which itself is composed of the democratically elected
>>>>> leaders of member nations. If this is somehow undemocratic, how come
>>>>> you're not complaining that our civil service is not democratically
>>>>> elected?
>>>>
>>>> The Commission is now like the CS /plus/ Ministers. And unlike
>>>> Ministers here, only the Commission can start the formal legislative
>>>> process.
>>>>
>>>> Your own link has it right:
>>>>
>>>> "The European Commission (EC) is the executive branch of the European
>>>> Union (EU). It operates as a cabinet government, with 27 members of the
>>>> Commission (informally known as "Commissioners") headed by a
>>>> President.It includes an administrative body of about 32,000 European
>>>> civil servants....The governmental powers of the Commission have been
>>>> such that some, including former Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt,
>>>> have suggested changing its name to the "European Government", calling
>>>> the present name of the Commission "ridiculous"."
>>>>
>>>> and
>>>>
>>>> "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."
>>>
>>> Selective quoting, the next section reads [my caps]: "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 ON THE BASIS OF THESE PROPOSALS. This monopoly is designed to
>>> ensure coordinated and coherent drafting of EU law.[48][49]"
>>>
>>> So, although the Commission alone can initiate legislation, there would
>>> be little point in it doing so against the wishes of either the Council
>>> or the Parliament, because, just as in the UK, these democratically
>>> elected, one directly the other indirectly, bodies are required to
>>> ratify all law drafted by the Commission, so why would the Commission
>>> waste their own time and create a rod for their own backs by drafting
>>> unpopular laws that were never likely to get past the democratic process
>>> of ratification? Which was exactly the sort of crap being claimed up
>>> thread, and that I was debunking, let's look at it again: "the political
>>> construct that is the undemocratic, unelected, administered by
>>> patronage, unaccountable to its "subjects" European Union." Nowhere is
>>> that borne out by the documents linked. It's just another Europhobic
>>> lie.
>>>
>>> To see how the EU actually works in practice, take, for example, the
>>> proposed law to enforce USB-C charging cables for small electronic
>>> devices. This began as long ago as 2014 through a majority vote in the
>>> European Parliament ...
>>>
>>> https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20140307IPR38122/meps-push-for-common-charger-for-all-mobile-phones
>>>
>>>
>>> ... and resulted in a voluntary Memorandum of Understanding. However,
>>> recently the MEPs decided that this voluntary arrangement was not moving
>>> things on completely and quickly enough, and requested the Commission to
>>> produce legislation ...
>>>
>>> https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-9-2020-0024_EN.html
>>>
>>> ... so the Commission went and produced a report ...
>>>
>>> https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/90e9a07d-1054-11ec-9151-01aa75ed71a1
>>>
>>>
>>> ... and then a proposal for an appropriate amendment to an existing
>>> directive to cover the issue ...
>>>
>>> https://ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/46755
>>>
>>> ... which is about where we are at now, legislation is expected to come
>>> into force in 2024.
>>>
>>> And, remember, this arose from an initiative by democratically elected
>>> MEPs, not the Commission. You could argue that it's taken too long to
>>> get there, but that was mainly because it was decided to try a voluntary
>>> approach first, and the reluctance of one particular major brand to
>>> comply with the voluntary agreement.
>>>
>> Hoist by your own petard!
>
> Not.
>
>> In the UK the electorate vote for an MP. That MP goes to the House of
>> Commons which is an executive organisation which develops and issues
>> legislation.
>
> Although it can do so, by Private Members' Bills, but see below, it
> doesn't usually *draft* the legislation, rather its role is to ratify or
> not legislation produced by others who are more experienced at that
> particular job, our civil service. In this respect, there is very
> little difference between the EU modus operandi and that of the UK
> government. See the link already given:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament
>
> "Therefore, while Parliament can amend and reject legislation, to make a
> proposal for legislation, it needs the Commission to draft a bill before
> anything can become law.[49] The value of such a power has been
> questioned by noting that in the national legislatures of the member
> states 85% of initiatives introduced without executive support fail to
> become law.[50] Yet it has been argued by former Parliament president
> Hans-Gert Pöttering that as the Parliament does have the right to ask
> the Commission to draft such legislation, and as the Commission is
> following Parliament's proposals more and more Parliament does have a de
> facto right of legislative initiative.[7]"
>
>> The electorate also vote for MEPs who take their place in the European
>> Parliament. From your example above the MEPs only suggest to the
>> Commission what should be done they do not issue legislation they have
>> developed. Thus the European Parliament is not an executive
>> organisation. The MEPs are elected, but those elected only form a
>> lobbying organisation, under a fancy name to fool gullible people like
>> you into believing they have more authority than they actually have.
>
> Nonsense, as demonstrated in the example I gave up thread, and the quote
> immediately above, which continues into the next section:
>
> "Legislative procedure
>
> With each new treaty, the powers of the Parliament, in terms of its role
> in the Union's legislative procedures, have expanded. The procedure
> which has slowly become dominant is the "ordinary legislative procedure"
> (previously named "codecision procedure"), which provides an equal
> footing between Parliament and Council. In particular, under the
> procedure, the Commission presents a proposal to Parliament and the
> Council which can only become law if both agree on a text, which they do
> (or not) through successive readings up to a maximum of three. In its
> first reading, Parliament may send amendments to the Council which can
> either adopt the text with those amendments or send back a "common
> position". That position may either be approved by Parliament, or it may
> reject the text by an absolute majority, causing it to fail, or it may
> adopt further amendments, also by an absolute majority. If the Council
> does not approve these, then a "Conciliation Committee" is formed. The
> Committee is composed of the Council members plus an equal number of
> MEPs who seek to agree a compromise. Once a position is agreed, it has
> to be approved by Parliament, by a simple majority.[6][53] This is also
> aided by Parliament's mandate as the only directly democratic
> institution, which has given it leeway to have greater control over
> legislation than other institutions, for example over its changes to the
> Bolkestein directive in 2006.[34]"
>
The fact still remains that the European parliament is not an executive
organisation. It only approves that the legislation can be issued, it
does not have the authority to make the laws.

MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:

> On 09/03/2022 11:34, Wilf wrote:
> > At least people know the potential score under PR. They know that,
> > however problematical coalition governments may be, they at least get
> > represented in parliament according to the proportion of their votes.
> > 43.6% of voters voted for the Conservatives last time, yet they have an
> > overall majority of 80 in the Commons (over 55% of MPs).
>
> But under PR a small party that received few votes can hold virtually a
> large party to ransom.

The same holds under FPTP.
What price* the DUP during May's brief reign?

* Reportedly >£1bn

--
^Ï^ I have a bird that whistles and I have birds that sing.

My pet rock Gordon just is.

On 09/03/2022 15:19, Indy Jess John wrote:
>
> The fact still remains that the European parliament is not an executive
> organisation.  It only approves that the legislation can be issued, it
> does not have the authority to make the laws.

The facts still remain that nearly all of the legislation passing
through the UK Parliament is not created by MPs themselves but by the
government ...

https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/laws/bills/private-members/

.... while nearly all of the bills presented to the European Parliament
by the Commission for debate and ratification result from previous
Council or Parliamentary requests. So in practice the EU is at least
just as democratic as the UK, and arguably more so, because there being
no undemocratic government whip system, each MEP is free to vote
according to his/her conscience and judgement as to what is best, which
is not often the case in the UK.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 09/03/2022 20:10, Java Jive wrote:

> The facts still remain that nearly all of the legislation passing
> through the UK Parliament is not created by MPs themselves but by the
> government ...

"Nearly all" leaves the balance as "Some is", a fact that you
continually try to mask.

Jim