Merkel still backs Juncker...

[keithisco]

Do you vote for the Prime Minister when you vote for your local MP. This is in no way materially different.

I do not accept your point. This is not an American style Presidential election and we do not live in an American style Republic. Also the EU President wields no where near the same power as a US President so direct election of this post is inappropriate.

The only point I would concede is that most people may have been unaware that Juncker was their designated representative when they voted for their constituent party - but surely that is a flaw of the people not taking this important election seriously enough. However even this is a dubious point in light of what Questionmark has just posted.

the double standards you pair are coming out with just astounds me

Br Cornelius

Emphasis mine: Juncker was NOT anyone's designated Representative for the job, because NO UK Political Party is in the EPP. The EU President controls the Agenda and approves debate on Legislation that he sees fit - his power therefore is much greater than you are suggesting. He controls all of the Committees in the EU and drives the overall direction of future EU Policy during his tenure at the helm.

What double standards would you be referring to?

[keithisco]

That is factually wrong, according to the Lisbon accord the nomination of the Prezz was to be done considering the result of the EU election. I don't know about Britain, but in at least 20 countries of the EU I know of the thingy was stylized as the battle between Junker and Schulz, both the top candidate of their party, though in all countries there were TV coverage of it and they even had a TV debate in most countries (as far as I remember also in the UK).

Cameron's main problem is that he pulled the Tories out of the European Popular Party and therefore had no more say in who could be a successful candidate for the position. And suddenly he realized that and tried to bully his way through, his problem: The times in which Europe gave in to British blackmail ended with Lady Thatcher.

Emphasis mine: The correct phrase is "taking into account the results (plural) of the EU Election. To my way of thinking that means if there is a strong backlash to the Status Quo then THAT ALSO should have been taken into account. It most clearly was not the case

[Guest]

Keith and Steve, you both seem to have a very poor grasp on how representative democracy functions. If you don't hold the majority you don't get to decide. Thats how it works in the UK, Eire, Spain and Germany. Get over it.

Br Cornelius

[Frank Merton]

It looks to me Germany has the money and more and more pulls the strings.

[questionmark]

Emphasis mine: The correct phrase is "taking into account the results (plural) of the EU Election. To my way of thinking that means if there is a strong backlash to the Status Quo then THAT ALSO should have been taken into account. It most clearly was not the case

Well, so who is the alternative? Schulz? Because those were the only two who were sold to the people as candidates. And once almost all governments had sold them as candidates there was no way back.

The EKR (To which the Tories belong) did not even bother to present a candidate that people could vote for.

[Guest]

The Commission is the least democratic element of the EU institution and the element I would have most concern about it terms of its undemocratic influence on national affairs. This move towards a more democratic system of selection has to be a baby step in the right direction of curing that.

I see the arguments here as an attempt to make the EU as dysfunctional and unrepresentative as possible in order provide a stick to beat the EU with.

Br Cornelius

[keithisco]

Well, so who is the alternative? Schulz? Because those were the only two who were sold to the people as candidates. And once almost all governments had sold them as candidates there was no way back.

The EKR (To which the Tories belong) did not even bother to present a candidate that people could vote for.

There was good reason for this:

Martin Callanan (pictured), the ECR group’s president, said that this lack of a European demos means that any process of directly electing a European Commission president would be illegitimate.

“Do you really think that a Danish person going out there to vote is thinking to themselves, ‘would I prefer Jean-Claude Juncker to be president of the European Commission or Martin Schulz?” Callanan asked.

“We’re living in a Brussels bubble here,” he added. “We’re interested in this subject, we know about it. But really, in the world out there I find it hard to believe that more than a micro percentage of the population in any country are actually going to be basing their vote in the elections on any serious consideration of who the trans-European candidates might be.”

For this reason, he said, the ECR group will not be issuing a pan-European manifesto. Because they are an “alliance of parties” rather than a united front, each party will come out with different election manifestos

Link: http://www.europeanvoice.com/article/ecr-nobody-for-president/

[questionmark]

There was good reason for this:

Link: http://www.europeanv...-for-president/

Well, failed, the other strategy won and bickering about it just shows some sore looser. The winner will be the European people as their parliament has been put a little more into the driver seat.

[Guest]

In the Uk they were in total denial that the Presidential element was even part of the process. It got almost no coverage. The focus was totally on UKIP.

Basically the British political establishment are in total denial that the EU has any legitimate processes of democracy that are worth engaging in.

Big mistake since you get the Pantomime which has just taken place when you don't tell the truth of what is really happening in an election, with Cameron as the jester - and they are still not talking about what really happened in the UK.

Br Cornelius

Edited June 29, 2014 by Guest

[keithisco]

In the Uk they were in total denial that the Presidential element was even part of the process. It got almost no coverage. The focus was totally on UKIP.

Basically the British political establishment are in total denial that the EU has any legitimate processes of democracy that are worth engaging in.

Big mistake since you get the Pantomime which has just taken place when you don't tell the truth of what is really happening in an election, with Cameron as the jester - and they are still not talking about what really happened in the UK.

Br Cornelius

Wrong again - there was NO Presidential element to the process. If that were true then you would be voting for 2 different candidates on the same form...:

1. MEP

2. President.

This was not the case, and I think it was very clear what really happened in the UK - it was a vote of confidence on the EU Status Quo, which was found wanting.

[Frank Merton]

My view is Britain cannot afford to try to go it separate from Europe. They need to compromise and Europe needs to compromise.

[Guest]

Wrong again - there was NO Presidential element to the process. If that were true then you would be voting for 2 different candidates on the same form...:

1. MEP

2. President.

This was not the case, and I think it was very clear what really happened in the UK - it was a vote of confidence on the EU Status Quo, which was found wanting.

There clearly was and it was clearly stated at EU level that the Parliament would choose the President - it doesn't require it to be on the ballot paper. As I said before this is not the USA, just as Cameron was never elected to be the PM.

Those are facts Keith and repeating that they are not wont change what happened. And treating it as a referendum was rather childish since it meant that the outcome was the worst possible one for Britain influincing policy within Europe. If the UK really wants a referendum then have one - but don't shoot yourself in the foot by boycotting the EU election.

If the people of the UK start to take the institutions of the EU with the significance they deserve then maybe they will start to have a bit more of a useful input into shaping their future.

Br Cornelius

Edited June 29, 2014 by Guest

[questionmark]

My view is Britain cannot afford to try to go it separate from Europe. They need to compromise and Europe needs to compromise.

It would be a disservice to the people of Europe to try to row back on democratic gains.

[Guest]

The tragic situation is that if the Tories had have remained within the EPP and formed a strong negotiating block with Germany the outcome would almost certainly have been that Juncker would not now be President. The irony.

Br Cornelius

[keithisco]

There clearly was and it was clearly stated at EU level that the Parliament would choose the President - it doesn't require it to be on the ballot paper. As I said before this is not the USA, just as Cameron was never elected to be the PM.

Those are facts Keith and repeating that they are not wont change what happened. And treating it as a referendum was rather childish since it meant that the outcome was the worst possible one for Britain influincing policy within Europe. If the UK really wants a referendum then have one - but don't shoot yourself in the foot by boycotting the EU election.

If the people of the UK start to take the institutions of the EU with the significance they deserve then maybe they will start to have a bit more of a useful input into shaping their future.

Br Cornelius

But... and this is my point - Cameron WAS elected to be PM as the leader of the Tory Party, supposing he could create a coalition (which he did). There was no doubt that he would become PM. We have a situation in the EU whereby Juncker is still not President.

Nobody has boycotted the EU Elections - the opposite is the case, a strong and clear message was sent out from divers nations that the Status Quo is not acceptable. There needs to be more consensus, a direction that allows for all voices to be heard, and a reeling in of Federalism.

As time goes on it becomes clearer that only the Eurozone will have any influence, and therefore, it behoves the UK to cut them adrift to become a grouping of only 11 nations.

Please do not call me "Childish", as I never suggested the EU Vote was a Referendum - to resort to such tactics only informs me as to the strength of your argument

[keithisco]

The tragic situation is that if the Tories had have remained within the EPP and formed a strong negotiating block with Germany the outcome would almost certainly have been that Juncker would not now be President. The irony.

Br Cornelius

That presumes complete agreement with the EPP grouping policies going forward. That was not the case so the honourable, and correct course of action, was to leave the grouping to those who are devout federalists.

[Guest]

That presumes complete agreement with the EPP grouping policies going forward. That was not the case so the honourable, and correct course of action, was to leave the grouping to those who are devout federalists.

Merkel would have compromised, she has as good as stated such. Britain and Germany standing together would have held tremendous weight in the process.

Br Cornelius

[keithisco]

Merkel would have compromised, she has as good as stated such. Britain and Germany standing together would have held tremendous weight in the process.

Br Cornelius

I believe Merkel was pressured by her own Party. They have to weaken the UK because it is fast becoming a European Powerhouse of innovation, and new industrial production (the newly reopened Steel Mills on Tyneside selling to Taiwan and S. Korean as evidence). It is wrong that 2 nations in Europe, should hold a disproportionate amount of power, even if it is Germany and the UK. This not democracy in action.

[questionmark]

I believe Merkel was pressured by her own Party. They have to weaken the UK because it is fast becoming a European Powerhouse of innovation, and new industrial production (the newly reopened Steel Mills on Tyneside selling to Taiwan and S. Korean as evidence). It is wrong that 2 nations in Europe, should hold a disproportionate amount of power, even if it is Germany and the UK. This not democracy in action.

Merkel was pressured by the electorate, just mentioning that "it might not be Junker" cost her 3 points in the opinion polls, if she would not have supported Junker she would have been considered to break her word. What then happens has been shown by Helmut Kohl's dismissal by the people (and he just had a vision of a flowering East Germany that did not happen).

[Guest]

Merkel was pressured by the electorate, just mentioning that "it might not be Junker" cost her 3 points in the opinion polls, if she would not have supported Junker she would have been considered to break her word. What then happens has been shown by Helmut Kohl's dismissal by the people (and he just had a vision of a flowering East Germany that did not happen).

Indeed this would have all been decided over a year ago in Dublin when Juncker was chosen. If Cameron had have been there standing shoulder to shoulder with Merkel then both would have gotten there way and a different candidate would have emerged. As Cameron said (ironically) decisions have consequences.

Br Cornelius

[questionmark]

Indeed this would have all been decided over a year ago in Dublin when Juncker was chosen. If Cameron had have been there standing shoulder to shoulder with Merkel then both would have gotten there way and a different candidate would have emerged. As Cameron said (ironically) decisions have consequences.

Br Cornelius

Lets face it, leaving the EPP was just a gimmick that Cameron devised for a short term gain: winning the next elections. He never figured that there would be a price to pay once he won.

[stevewinn]

Juncker is the problem the man is old europe to Federalist he wants more Europe not less. Juncker was also one of the main players of the doomed European constitution, only to be rebranded the Lisbon treaty - refusing to recognise that having been totally rejected by France and other countries, it was dead in the water. He famously said on the EU constitution “If it’s a Yes, we will say ‘on we go’, and if it’s a No, we will say ‘we continue’. - He also told the then British Prime minister Gordon Brown: “Of course there will be transfers of sovereignty. But would I be intelligent to draw the attention of public opinion to this fact?” "Mr Juncker said he supported public debate on the treaty - except in Britain" quote comes from the Telegraph in 2007

http://www.telegraph...-EU-treaty.html

Br you can bang on about the process but the big problem is its the man, It's Juncker. people of the UK and others want less europe, want europe to have less power. but the EU elite are not going to listen to that, no. they want their man who'll give them more europe and more power. even the French people are starting to get fed up with it. but ultimately more power for the EU means more power to Germany and lesser extent France. the UK is marginalised like the other 26 members, but unlike the other 26 we can stand up and call the EU to task, we might not win but i'd rather stand up and question than sit down and cower.

Edited June 29, 2014 by stevewinn

[Guest]

So Steve that is why I advocate more European democracy and taking that seriously enough not to sleepwalk into disasters as they just have.

Your way is not the way forward.

Br Cornelius

[stevewinn]

So Steve that is why I advocate more European democracy and taking that seriously enough not to sleepwalk into disasters as they just have.

Your way is not the way forward.

Br Cornelius

What exactly is my way? because i'll tell you this now If you think Juncker will give the EU more democracy think again. the people of europe dont want a closer EU they dont want the EU to have more powers. Democracy would be to listen to the people like they said they would in the aftermath of the last election. but NO, they install a man who'll do exactly the opposite of what the people want Its full steam ahead for more EU more EU powers. its going to be an interesting 5 years.

[questionmark]

What exactly is my way? because i'll tell you this now If you think Juncker will give the EU more democracy think again. the people of europe dont want a closer EU they dont want the EU to have more powers. Democracy would be to listen to the people like they said they would in the aftermath of the last election. but NO, they install a man who'll do exactly the opposite of what the people want Its full steam ahead for more EU more EU powers. its going to be an interesting 5 years.

Juncker has not really gained any power for the Commission or the European Council, he has gained power for the parliament because what swayed most chiefs of state was the announcement of the majority there that they would vote for nobody else.