EU Commission gets its arse kicked

[The Gaffer]

Background: The European Commission is the EU's most powerful body. They draw up and implement most of the laws and programmes of the EU. The Commission is led by a set of Commissioners, who are nominated by the member states and appointed to lead specific areas of government by the President of the Commission.

The only directly elected body is the European Parliament. In theory the Commission is accountable to the Parliament, but in practice Parliament has very little power to influence the Commission. However, yesterday the Parliament was about to veto the whole Commission because of the views of some of the incoming Commissioners. As a result, the President withdrew his proposals.

Barroso thinks again (BBC)

Who else thinks it's great that the European Commission got the bum's rush from the Parliament? Could it be that the European Parliament is finally getting some teeth? Has anyone stayed awake to the end of this message?

[sun-star]

I think it's fantastic. Took them long enough to get there, but at last they're doing something other than just agreeing to everything the Commission does.

Enjoyable as this is, however, it's not an example of democracy. The Parliament isn't expressing the views of EU citizens in doing this (or has there been a huge popular movement I missed, on this topic which about one in every hundred people cares about?) and the Commission will still have all the power when they finally get accepted. It's a gesture towards democratic accountability for the Commission - but they need to be properly elected!

[jerseydevil]

I saw this on french news and then BBC tonight. At first he said he wasn't changing the people in his commission - now from what I understand he is and he's saying it will take a month or something before he submits them again. Also - isn't the EU Constitution up for a vote? I didn't catch it all.

[Elvellon]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Background: The European Commission is the EU's most powerful body. They draw up and implement most of the laws and programmes of the EU. The Commission is led by a set of Commissioners, who are nominated by the member states and appointed to lead specific areas of government by the President of the Commission.

The only directly elected body is the European Parliament. In theory the Commission is accountable to the Parliament, but in practice Parliament has very little power to influence the Commission. However, yesterday the Parliament was about to veto the whole Commission because of the views of some of the incoming Commissioners. As a result, the President withdrew his proposals.

Barroso thinks again (BBC)

Who else thinks it's great that the European Commission got the bum's rush from the Parliament? Could it be that the European Parliament is finally getting some teeth? Has anyone stayed awake to the end of this message?

Well, the Parliament started to flex its muscles. Let’s see if they will do it in really important issues. But anyway, I didn’t expect “Durão” Barroso keep his “strong “ position anyway. For some reason he was selected for the Comission, after the worse electoral results of his party, ever.

[Elvellon]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

I saw this on french news and then BBC tonight. At first he said he wasn't changing the people in his commission - now from what I understand he is and he's saying it will take a month or something before he submits them again. Also - isn't the EU Constitution up for a vote? I didn't catch it all.

No. The EU leaders are signing the constitutional treaty. The vote was for the Comission

[sun-star]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

I saw this on french news and then BBC tonight. At first he said he wasn't changing the people in his commission - now from what I understand he is and he's saying it will take a month or something before he submits them again. Also - isn't the EU Constitution up for a vote? I didn't catch it all.

The Constitution is being signed by the leaders today, but it won't be ratified until each member state has accepted it - so it won't come into effect for quite a long time. Most of them will probably have referendums on it first.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Elvellon

No. The EU leaders are signing the constitutional treaty. The vote was for the Comission

I knew they were seperate. I was just adding in about the Constitution being signed also during all this.

[The Gaffer]

The leaders signed up to the Constitution at the weekend, but most countries will have a domestic referendum on the Constitution. Bliar has promised one in the UK after he wins the next election.

Me, I think it's great, particularly since all the individual country governments were really pushing their parliamentary representatives to support the incoming commission. The EU has for too long been mostly a playground where countries trade off each other in their own national interests (i.e. French farmers).

Maybe there's a chance that a greater political perspective can prevail.

* Notices that the right are now demanding that a left-winger resign to balance the loss of Buttiglioni *

Oh, well, it was nice while it lasted.

EDIT: Beezer avatar, Elvellon!

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by sun-star

The Parliament isn't expressing the views of EU citizens in doing this (or has there been a huge popular movement I missed, on this topic which about one in every hundred people cares about?) and the Commission will still have all the power when they finally get accepted. It's a gesture towards democratic accountability for the Commission - but they need to be properly elected!

Hm, well, I agree with the last point there, though I don't on the first one.

These people are our directly elected representatives, so their views are ours as far as democracy is concerned, unless you want them to have a referendum on every topic that matters to "one in a hundred" of us?

I would have thought that Buttiglioni's views were unconstitutional, since equality (gender and sexual orientation) is part of the EU constitution and one of it's core values:

The Union is founded on the values of respect for human dignity, liberty, democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities. These values are common to the member states in a society in which pluralism, non-discrimination, tolerance, justice, solidarity and equality between men and women prevail.

How can someone like Buttiglioni represent those values? In the post of Justice commissioner??

[sun-star]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

These people are our directly elected representatives, so their views are ours as far as democracy is concerned, unless you want them to have a referendum on every topic that matters to "one in a hundred" of us?

I expressed myself badly - I just think it's a pity that the only issue they can assert their power with is one that no one cares about. Personally I prefer direct to representative democracy and would have referendums on every issue if I could, but that's just impractical me

BTW, "their views are ours"? I hope it's the other way around

I would have thought that Buttiglioni's views were unconstitutional,

We have as yet no constitution

since equality (gender and sexual orientation) is part of the EU constitution and one of it's core values. How can someone like Buttiglioni represent those values? In the post of Justice commissioner??

If we're talking about being representative, he probably represents a lot of Catholic, evangelical Christian and Muslim opinion. However, I agree that he should not be a Commissioner.

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by sun-star

I expressed myself badly - I just think it's a pity that the only issue they can assert their power with is one that no one cares about. Personally I prefer direct to representative democracy and would have referendums on every issue if I could, but that's just impractical me

BTW, "their views are ours"? I hope it's the other way around

Sadly not, though the reasons are not unconnected to your first point.

Personally, I think it would be a total disaster if we had referenda the whole time. It would be impossible to have any kind of strategic policital planning. (Some might say we wouldn't notice the difference, of course).

I agree, though, that they have so little opportunity to assert themselves except in such a dramatic fashion, as they did a few years ago when they sacked the entire Commission for being corrupt and incompetent. See how they learned their lesson?

A good first step would be to rack up the power of the oversight committees, though there is always a danger there of them being hijacked by interest groups.

Originally Posted by sun-star

We have as yet no constitution

If we're talking about being representative, he probably represents a lot of Catholic, evangelical Christian and Muslim opinion. However, I agree that he should not be a Commissioner.

I wasn't, but we can if you like. There's plenty of people beyond these groups that share his views. Even if the majority believed that homosexuality was a sin and women are inferior to men, it wouldn't make it right, as I'm sure you agree.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

The leaders signed up to the Constitution at the weekend, but most countries will have a domestic referendum on the Constitution. Bliar has promised one in the UK after he wins the next election.

surely that should be if he wins, which i am seriously hoping he won't

[Janny]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

There's plenty of people beyond these groups that share his views. Even if the majority believed that homosexuality was a sin and women are inferior to men, it wouldn't make it right, as I'm sure you agree.

I think we're addressing something deeper here.

Which is more important 'what is right' or democratic choice?
This to me 'is right'. It is only because the vast majoirty of the populace
believe that men and women are equal (as I do) that it is considered right.
But what if the decision of the US election goes to me? I happen to think that a certain Mr. Bush is better than a certain Mr. Kerry. I hear people calling for a different take on 'what is right'.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Janny

It is only because the vast majoirty of the populace
believe that men and women are equal (as I do) that it is considered right.

Well that's why you can't judge the past on the morals of today. People are trying to rewrite Abe Lincoln as a racist person who did nothing for freeing the blacks - because of statements he had made about sending them back to Africa. The thing is - that was the time he lived in. Woman not voting, not having a say in society - was normal in the past.

It's not just America arguing about gay marriage - but Europe is too. Someday it may be normal thing and people of the future may look down upon us - or think we didn't go far enough. or they may think that marriage itself was a stupid tradition. But right now it's the majority that determines are morality and what society believes.