Turn on thread page Beta

UK Politics - Mandy to be new European Commissioner watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    From BBC:

    "Peter Mandleson has been named as Britain's next European commissioner.

    He replaces Neil Kinnock and Chris Patten in the role, which has been condensed into one job.

    The move represents a remarkable political comeback for Mr Mandelson, who has twice resigned from the cabinet in controversial circumstances."

    However this appointment has been accused of being "Jobs for the Boys" and "another failed politician jumpi9ng on the EU gravy train.
    However Mandleson is an experienced politician with plenty of clout and his close links with the Prime Minister could be seen as a good thing.

    Is Mandy the best person to be our man in Europe? Or is this just another job for one of Blair's friends such as Lords Irvine and Falconer?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    like Patten and Kinnock, another marginalised politician doing our bidding in Europe..
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    like Patten and Kinnock, another marginalised politician doing our bidding in Europe..
    You would have preferred a more high-profile appointment?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Huntroyde)
    You would have preferred a more high-profile appointment?
    Mandelson is high profile, but it seems strange that like Patten and Kinnock he is not part of New Labour. he's got more fire about him, and i dont think he genuinely is in love with the idea of Europe, but he's a career politician and he'll sell us down the road.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    Mandelson is high profile, but it seems strange that like Patten and Kinnock he is not part of New Labour. he's got more fire about him, and i dont think he genuinely is in love with the idea of Europe, but he's a career politician and he'll sell us down the road.
    But being friendly with Tony should make him more powerful, don't you think?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Huntroyde)
    But being friendly with Tony should make him more powerful, don't you think?
    in Europe? not really. just means we get someone for Tony's benefit and not ours.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    Thread title changed for Vienna
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Huntroyde)
    Thread title changed for Vienna
    thanks, is that just a subscriber thing?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    Yep

    EDIT: :cool:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by piginapoke)
    "The appointment will have to be ratified by MEPs, but they can only veto it by rejecting the European Commission as a whole."

    That sounds a bit undemocratic.
    welcome to the world of the EU. criticising the EU, its legislation or bodies, is defined as 'blasphemy' in the EU constitution. that applies to every EU citizen.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    welcome to the world of the EU. criticising the EU, its legislation or bodies, is defined as 'blasphemy' in the EU constitution. that applies to every EU citizen.
    I'm a bit too tired to discern whether that is facetious sarcasm or not. If so, its not too bad. If not, are you serious? I can actually believe something like that being slipped in is all.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    vienna, don't spose you've got a link hand for the EU constitution? and btw, if you remember our last on the topic of the UN. I agree with you. Reluctantly, but I read what you asked me too and I see your point. Disagree with it, but I see it all the same.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    If I were Mandelson I wouldn't have taken it. Being packed off to Europe signals the end of his political career!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sire)
    I'm a bit too tired to discern whether that is facetious sarcasm or not. If so, its not too bad. If not, are you serious? I can actually believe something like that being slipped in is all.
    the blasphemy part?

    Criticism of the European Union is akin to blasphemy and could be restricted without violating freedom of speech." Advocate-General, European Court of Justice 1 1 Advocate-General at the European Court of Justice (in case C-274/99, cited in Steven McGiffen, The European Union _ a critical guide, Pluto Press, London, 2001

    Article 52 of the Charter of Rights says that all freedoms and rights can be restricted to meet objectives of general interest recognised by the Union,including the right to free speech,the right to a fair trial and the presupmtion of innocence.

    To demonstrate what this means the European Court of Justice has already ruled that the EU can lawfully suppress political criticism of its decisions and of leading figures.Furthermore anyone who is rash enough to express an opinion contrary to a Fundamental policy of the EU, and thereby damages the Commission, is guilty of seditious libel.

    im aware, this was taken from an article in the Telegraph....

    "Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer ventured into blasphemy law in an opinion delivered on 19 October in a landmark free-speech case - number C-274/99 P. It involves a British economist, Bernard Connolly, who argues that he was unlawfully sacked from the European Commission for writing The Rotten Heart of Europe

    Last year Connolly lost his case in the EU's lower court, the Court of First Instance, which ruled that the EU has an undefined -- and seemingly unlimited - power to restrict political criticism in 'the general interests of the Communities'

    The blasphemous shockers in this critique of economic and monetary integration are all carefully prepared by European Commission officials in a chargesheet against the author. The indictment found that the book was injurious to the good name of the Commission because it

    1) criticised the 'blind arrogance of Frenchmen such as Jacques Delors and his Commission acolytes';

    2) used the term 'Satanic-featured' to describe the goatee beard and beetling eyebrows of the Portuguese Commissioner, Joao de Deus Pinheiro;

    3) accused the European Commission's man in London, Geoffrey Martin, of 'ceaseless denigration' of his own country;

    4) compared 'British Euro-enthusiasts' to fellow-travellers who apologised for Stalin in the 1930s; 5)

    5) and, most heinously, referred to the 'opportunism' of the Italian government.

    The implication is patent: the E.U. advocate- general is asserting that Euroscepticism is akin to blasphemy.

    You have only to read Article 52 (latest version) of the Charter to see where this is heading.
    It states that the European Union may limit all rights and
    freedoms enumerated in the Charter 'subject to the principle of proportionality', where 'necessary' in order to 'meet objectives of general interest recognised by the Union'"

    all of this is effectively reiterated in the Constitution if my memory serves me.

    EDIT: Articles III-170 and 171 of the Draft Constitution give the EU power to"approximate" the civil and criminal law and procedures of Member States. This gives the EU the possibility to limit such rights as presumption of innocence until proven guilty, trialby jury, the rules of evidence, safety from preventive detention and the burden ofproof on prosecutors, where there are big differences between the Member States.

    EDIT 2: "Since only the Commission can initiate the process of reversing or modifying EU laws, the right of voters to change laws and governments is denied. Moreover, like the existing Treaties, the draft Constitution encompasses not only the institutional structure of the EU, but also the political content, ingraining both left and right values that should otherwise be subjected to the democratic will of the people over the passage of time.

    The undemocratic political process is clearly evidenced by the power of the Union to withdraw speaking and funding rights from political parties represented in the European Parliament. In this context, EU-critical parties are discriminated against simply because they fail to tow the Union's political line. Yet true democracy requires an even playing field for all political formations, irrelevant of their views, which should be subject only to the democratic vote of the people. "
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Don't MEPs get payed absolutely loads and get huge pentions (more than the average politicians anyway)?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Louise_1988)
    Don't MEPs get payed absolutely loads and get huge pentions (more than the average politicians anyway)?
    yep. for instance, if history is anything to go by, the money they want to take from the UK in terms of scrapping our rebate, will go into the pockets of MEPs and diplomats, not to the poorer Central European populations.

    in addition, the EU want the UK to increase our contribution from 0.22% of GDI to 0.51%, while scrapping the rebate, meaning UK will be contributing 50% more than France. http://news.independent.co.uk/europe...p?story=539111
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sire)
    vienna, don't spose you've got a link hand for the EU constitution? and btw, if you remember our last on the topic of the UN. I agree with you. Reluctantly, but I read what you asked me too and I see your point. Disagree with it, but I see it all the same.
    no, i ordered a hard copy ages ago. im sure you can google it
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by piginapoke)
    Usually being sacked for doing favours for people by giving them passports would signal the end of someone's political career...
    In most circles it would be, except Mandelson isn't your typical politician!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    the blasphemy part?

    Criticism of the European Union is akin to blasphemy and could be restricted without violating freedom of speech." Advocate-General, European Court of Justice 1 1 Advocate-General at the European Court of Justice (in case C-274/99, cited in Steven McGiffen, The European Union _ a critical guide, Pluto Press, London, 2001

    Article 52 of the Charter of Rights says that all freedoms and rights can be restricted to meet objectives of general interest recognised by the Union,including the right to free speech,the right to a fair trial and the presupmtion of innocence.

    To demonstrate what this means the European Court of Justice has already ruled that the EU can lawfully suppress political criticism of its decisions and of leading figures.Furthermore anyone who is rash enough to express an opinion contrary to a Fundamental policy of the EU, and thereby damages the Commission, is guilty of seditious libel.

    im aware, this was taken from an article in the Telegraph....

    "Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer ventured into blasphemy law in an opinion delivered on 19 October in a landmark free-speech case - number C-274/99 P. It involves a British economist, Bernard Connolly, who argues that he was unlawfully sacked from the European Commission for writing The Rotten Heart of Europe

    Last year Connolly lost his case in the EU's lower court, the Court of First Instance, which ruled that the EU has an undefined -- and seemingly unlimited - power to restrict political criticism in 'the general interests of the Communities'

    The blasphemous shockers in this critique of economic and monetary integration are all carefully prepared by European Commission officials in a chargesheet against the author. The indictment found that the book was injurious to the good name of the Commission because it

    1) criticised the 'blind arrogance of Frenchmen such as Jacques Delors and his Commission acolytes';

    2) used the term 'Satanic-featured' to describe the goatee beard and beetling eyebrows of the Portuguese Commissioner, Joao de Deus Pinheiro;

    3) accused the European Commission's man in London, Geoffrey Martin, of 'ceaseless denigration' of his own country;

    4) compared 'British Euro-enthusiasts' to fellow-travellers who apologised for Stalin in the 1930s; 5)

    5) and, most heinously, referred to the 'opportunism' of the Italian government.

    The implication is patent: the E.U. advocate- general is asserting that Euroscepticism is akin to blasphemy.

    You have only to read Article 52 (latest version) of the Charter to see where this is heading.
    It states that the European Union may limit all rights and
    freedoms enumerated in the Charter 'subject to the principle of proportionality', where 'necessary' in order to 'meet objectives of general interest recognised by the Union'"

    all of this is effectively reiterated in the Constitution if my memory serves me.

    EDIT: Articles III-170 and 171 of the Draft Constitution give the EU power to"approximate" the civil and criminal law and procedures of Member States. This gives the EU the possibility to limit such rights as presumption of innocence until proven guilty, trialby jury, the rules of evidence, safety from preventive detention and the burden ofproof on prosecutors, where there are big differences between the Member States.

    EDIT 2: "Since only the Commission can initiate the process of reversing or modifying EU laws, the right of voters to change laws and governments is denied. Moreover, like the existing Treaties, the draft Constitution encompasses not only the institutional structure of the EU, but also the political content, ingraining both left and right values that should otherwise be subjected to the democratic will of the people over the passage of time.

    The undemocratic political process is clearly evidenced by the power of the Union to withdraw speaking and funding rights from political parties represented in the European Parliament. In this context, EU-critical parties are discriminated against simply because they fail to tow the Union's political line. Yet true democracy requires an even playing field for all political formations, irrelevant of their views, which should be subject only to the democratic vote of the people. "
    Righto. Very interesting, but now for the obvious question. Why was this snippet allowed into the final draft? It seems to contradict the point of the constitution itself. In a vague way that is.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sire)
    Righto. Very interesting, but now for the obvious question. Why was this snippet allowed into the final draft? It seems to contradict the point of the constitution itself. In a vague way that is.
    as far as im aware its in the final draft. as for the contradiction, hehe, where to begin!!! the whole idea of the EU is politically motivated by the desire to see its existence as a final supranational federal state. anything that gets in its way must be compromised, and quickly. sound fiscal policy, economic sense, free markets, civil liberties, democracy...
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
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 27, 2004
Poll
Who is most responsible for your success at university
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

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

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