Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

After Juncker debacle another EU stitch up- time for the people to vote? Watch

  • View Poll Results: Should EU voters elect senior EU positions like EU Commision and Parliament President
    Yes- the people should elect them
    11
    73.33%
    No- leave to the EU to decide
    4
    26.67%

    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by This Is Matt)
    Farage's comments of a 'big stitch up' were in regard to Schulz. Schulz was chosen hence the claims of it being undemocratic.
    Schulz was chosen? For what?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SHallowvale)
    Schulz was chosen? For what?
    President of the European Parliament for the second time even though he is from a minor party.
    • TSR Group Staff
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by This Is Matt)
    No! In Britain we elect the party, the winning party/party with most MP's selects their leader. Martin Schulz came from a smaller party/the losing party. It would be a bit like overwhelmingly voting for the Conservatives and having the MP's decide Ed Miliband should become PM or vice-versa.

    The parties people voted for in May have no effect on outcome but in Britain the 2005 GE did. Brown was still Labour.
    Hmm I might be wrong here, but I thought the position of PM was technically a royal appointment? So it's not automatically true that the party with the most seats gets to put their leader in the post, and if the Government chose they could nominate someone from a minority party. Not that it's ever happened (or at least not recently) I grant you, but the fact that the EU have done it now doesn't make the decision undemocratic. We delegate the choice of appointments like this to the MEPs, same as we delegate the ability to make laws and so forth.

    Also it sounds like the guy chosen broadly supports the views of the main parties, so it's not really comparable to the idea of Ed leading the Tories, where the ideals obviously differ rather a lot.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dez)
    Hmm I might be wrong here, but I thought the position of PM was technically a royal appointment? So it's not automatically true that the party with the most seats gets to put their leader in the post, and if the Government chose they could nominate someone from a minority party. Not that it's ever happened (or at least not recently) I grant you, but the fact that the EU have done it now doesn't make the decision undemocratic. We delegate the choice of appointments like this to the MEPs, same as we delegate the ability to make laws and so forth.

    Also it sounds like the guy chosen broadly supports the views of the main parties, so it's not really comparable to the idea of Ed leading the Tories, where the ideals obviously differ rather a lot.
    Okay, that's true, it is. The Queen keeps to the public vote though and chooses her PM from the 'right' party. The system doesn't make the EU undemocratic but the back door handling does. Whilst the MEP's got to vote, there was only one candidate. Essentially Schulz was chosen by unelected bureaucrats and approved by the MEP's. As a result the MEP's didn't choose the candidate (if they did it would be a non-issue) but instead rubber stamped him.
    • TSR Group Staff
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by This Is Matt)
    Okay, that's true, it is. The Queen keeps to the public vote though and chooses her PM from the 'right' party. The system doesn't make the EU undemocratic but the back door handling does. Whilst the MEP's got to vote, there was only one candidate. Essentially Schulz was chosen by unelected bureaucrats and approved by the MEP's. As a result the MEP's didn't choose the candidate (if they did it would be a non-issue) but instead rubber stamped him.
    They still had the choice of voting for or against, though. And if they'd voted against his appointment then another candidate would've had to have been found, so I don't think it's that undemocratic, although it's certainly not what you'd call 100% transparent. Still, it seems to me that Schulz has a better mandate than Cameron has, the latter coming from a minority party who just happened to be able to form a Government. If it had come to a straight vote between MPs, Cameron would probably have lost.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dez)
    They still had the choice of voting for or against, though. And if they'd voted against his appointment then another candidate would've had to have been found, so I don't think it's that undemocratic, although it's certainly not what you'd call 100% transparent. Still, it seems to me that Schulz has a better mandate than Cameron has, the latter coming from a minority party who just happened to be able to form a Government. If it had come to a straight vote between MPs, Cameron would probably have lost.
    Fair point about Cameron, but the Queen could have appointed him anyway in a similar way the EU Commission could have done to Schulz if the MEP's had rejected him. It goes to show neither system is transparent and opens up a whole new debate about what democracy actually means.
    • Community Assistant
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by This Is Matt)
    Fair point about Cameron, but the Queen could have appointed him anyway in a similar way the EU Commission could have done to Schulz if the MEP's had rejected him. It goes to show neither system is transparent and opens up a whole new debate about what democracy actually means.
    I suspect that Merkel had those leaders of parties in the socialist grouping back Juncker in exchange for this.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CJKay)
    Why don't we like Juncker again? He seems quite level-headed, and given that we are one of two countries that voted against him I'm inclined to believe we're being overly picky and optimistic about leaving.
    He wants an EU army and police and various other things considered crazy by most people in the UK.

    In the rest of the EU this stuff is actually not nearly so controversial which is why there was so little opposition to him.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    I suspect that Merkel had those leaders of parties in the socialist grouping back Juncker in exchange for this.
    idk what is the need for the intervention of Merkel. The EPP may have been the largest grouping but it still only has less than 30% of the seats. It always would have needed a coalition with the socialists - or else with the eurosceptics! - and naturally in a coalition one doesn't get everything.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    I suspect that Merkel had those leaders of parties in the socialist grouping back Juncker in exchange for this.
    Wouldn't surprise me. She is a slippery piece of work. I have always been fascinated by countries who cower to Germany and how foreign EU leaders listen to her every word. You can almost imagine Merkel talking and having the other EU leaders crowding around making notes like you see with Kim Jong-un. It's time to start ganging up against Germany in the EU.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    He wants an EU army and police and various other things considered crazy by most people in the UK.

    In the rest of the EU this stuff is actually not nearly so controversial which is why there was so little opposition to him.
    I'm fairly sure "most" people in the UK don't care what happens as long as they are unaffected.

    But I wonder, why are we so different from the other EU countries?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by This Is Matt)
    President of the European Parliament for the second time even though he is from a minor party.
    Whether or not Schulz came from a minor party is irrelavent. What matters is whether or not he has the support from the European Parliament (which he does). In other words, his appointment was democratic as it was backed by a majority of the MEPs who voted.

    Granting a party instant power simply because they got the most seats would be undemocratic in a system whereas no party breaches 50% of the seats available. If a coalition between minor parties secures an overwhelming majority would it really be democratic to ignore it and favour the largest individual party (despite them having less public approval)?

    In the UK the system is the same. A party/coalition only gets into power if they have the support of a majority of MPs. They need not have gained the most seats in order to get into power. A Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition could have been possible if one was proposed and supported by a majority of MPs. There is no 'rule' that forces the largest party to have some power.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SHallowvale)
    Whether or not Schulz came from a minor party is irrelavent. What matters is whether or not he has the support from the European Parliament (which he does). In other words, his appointment was democratic as it was backed by a majority of the MEPs who voted.

    Granting a party instant power simply because they got the most seats would be undemocratic in a system whereas no party breaches 50% of the seats available. If a coalition between minor parties secures an overwhelming majority would it really be democratic to ignore it and favour the largest individual party (despite them having less public approval)?

    In the UK the system is the same. A party/coalition only gets into power if they have the support of a majority of MPs. They need not have gained the most seats in order to get into power. A Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition could have been possible if one was proposed and supported by a majority of MPs. There is no 'rule' that forces the largest party to have some power.
    I agree it's not undemocratic as far as the system goes as such but that's not the debate. There was only one candidate to vote on. The EU Commission chose the candidate. If the MEP's rejected Schulz, he would have been appointed by the Commission anyway - the undemocratic side is the unelected EU Commission having final say. The Commission has more say in the EU than the Queen does in the UK. Surely you agree an unelected Commission selecting the only candidate and being able to overrule any vote is not the way it should be?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CJKay)
    I'm fairly sure "most" people in the UK don't care what happens as long as they get are unaffected.
    You would be affected by a unified European army and police force. The effective abolition of this country and its (unique) legal system would profoundly affect everyone. But, shh, go back to sleep.

    But I wonder, why are we so different from the other EU countries?
    For one thing we have not been a military dictatorship within living memory. We have much less preternatural fear of land invasion. We have a much longer and more deeply ingrained conception of individual liberty, as opposed to liberalism based in nationalist unification movements.
    • Community Assistant
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by This Is Matt)
    Wouldn't surprise me. She is a slippery piece of work. I have always been fascinated by countries who cower to Germany and how foreign EU leaders listen to her every word. You can almost imagine Merkel talking and having the other EU leaders crowding around making notes like you see with Kim Jong-un. It's time to start ganging up against Germany in the EU.
    Why would you want to gang up, they are a far more natural ally in views than France for example. I like Merkel, reminds me a bit of Thatcher.

    Yeah i agree with you but that's German management for you. They avoided financial reliance on banking so the recession was relatively shallow. They had only a small deficit so have not had to make some of the harder choices we have. They have an export focus unlike consumption dependent countries. All in all they were well placed. And then rather than panic when the troubles hit and withdraw their 'investment', they took the opportunity to force their model on other countries and put their money where their mouth is. It's had some success in Ireland and even Spain if unemployment recovers although Greece and Portugal i think should have been booted by the remainder of the Euro-zone.

    Personally i value power so i say good on them, they've played every card right.

    (Original post by CJKay)
    I'm fairly sure "most" people in the UK don't care what happens as long as they get are unaffected.

    But I wonder, why are we so different from the other EU countries?
    We're not different from all on every issue. On stuff like the budget and economy in general we tend to form a voting block on the council with the likes of Germany and the Netherlands.

    I think though that we are different in that we have a whole english speaking world we can cosy up to should we choose and have a relatively good economy, so in effect we have options. For a small eastern block country the choice is Europe or Russia and for other small countries the choice is be unimportant (is Norway really important globally) or be part of something bigger.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Why would you want to gang up, they are a far more natural ally in views than France for example. I like Merkel, reminds me a bit of Thatcher.
    The problem is France and Germany are in turn much more natural allies than Britain and Germany. Merkel doesn't agree with us on any point where we are in dispute with the EU, and from a foreign policy perspective, the rest doesn't matter.

    No doubt in a general sense Germany doesn't want us to actually leave, with them left holding the can alone for the whole South European mess. But it's difficult to see why we should give a damn about that. They have substantive policy control, so why shouldn't they pay for all the problems those policies cause?
    • Community Assistant
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    The problem is France and Germany are in turn much more natural allies than Britain and Germany. Merkel doesn't agree with us on any point where we are in dispute with the EU, and from a foreign policy perspective, the rest doesn't matter.

    No doubt in a general sense Germany doesn't want us to actually leave, with them left holding the can alone for the whole South European mess. But it's difficult to see why we should give a damn about that. They have substantive policy control, so why shouldn't they pay for all the problems those policies cause?
    Fair points.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by This Is Matt)
    I agree it's not undemocratic as far as the system goes as such but that's not the debate. There was only one candidate to vote on. The EU Commission chose the candidate. If the MEP's rejected Schulz, he would have been appointed by the Commission anyway - the undemocratic side is the unelected EU Commission having final say. The Commission has more say in the EU than the Queen does in the UK. Surely you agree an unelected Commission selecting the only candidate and being able to overrule any vote is not the way it should be?
    Yes, I read the conversation you had with Dez and I can understand the confusion. :P

    Although, I have some questions:

    - Where (IE, in what treaties/official websites or documents) does it state that candidates for the President of the European Parliament are decided by the Commission?

    - Likewise, where does it state that the Commission has the final say over who is the next President of the European Parliament?

    If the above things are indeed true then I would agree that the system is quite undemocratic. However, I would like you to back up these claims before I can believe them.

    Also, the Commission is appointed by both the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union. The Commission cannot come to power without approval from both institutions. See more at: http://europa.eu/about-eu/institutio...n/index_en.htm. Sure, ''appointed'' is not the same as ''elected'' but the European Parliament still has complete control over whether or not a certain Commission exists. They also have the power to remove the Commission.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Fair points.
    Germany's game only suits Germany. Germany isn't doing what it's doing for the good of the EU. For example, Ireland and Spain were huge trading partners for Germany so of course Germany would aim to stabilise such countries. You rarely here for Germany calling to end corruption in Eastern Europe or pushing for more social care to improve the lives of the many poor people in Eastern Europe. Why? Eastern Europe has a relatively small effect on the German economy so Germany ignores them for the most part.

    Credit where credit is due, Germany has a strong leader unlike Britain. Britain seems to be set on some moral crusade to impose it's values over other countries through the tea and biscuits approach. Not to mention Thai fascinating Britain has with not upsetting anyone. I would like to see an aggressive Britain putting Britain first and not giving a damn about anyone else apart from very close allies. Britain should lead in Europe by means of economic, social and defence manipulation.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SHallowvale)
    Yes, I read the conversation you had with Dez and I can understand the confusion. :P
    Theres a very nice summary here http://www.robertthomson.info/wp-con...JCMS_power.pdf

    Here - Under Artcile 289 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the Commission has power to introduce legislation after taking into account Parliaments say. So in this case, the Commission asks for the Parliament to approve Schulz, if the Parliament rejected Schulz, the Commission has fulfilled it's requirement to take into account Parliament's view, but has no obligation to listen to it. Hence the Commission could still appoint Schulz. It's called Special Legislative Power.

    Although the Parliament has co-decision on many issues, foreign affairs, budget, defence, candidacy and leadership along with a few other thins are exempt.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: July 2, 2014
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.