TV3 mins ago
Why Doesn't The Pm Grow A Pair....?
29 Answers
What a kin surprise EU goes against Britain! Ok we are going to have this marxist imposed on us....should please mikey anyway!
http://
If I was the PM I'd march straight into the meeting and say, right I don't give a rats ar5se about this meeting/vote, if Junckers is the president we stop paying tomorrow, capiesch? and walk out and go and have a pint round the corner. Ok cue all the anti British...........out you come....
http://
If I was the PM I'd march straight into the meeting and say, right I don't give a rats ar5se about this meeting/vote, if Junckers is the president we stop paying tomorrow, capiesch? and walk out and go and have a pint round the corner. Ok cue all the anti British...........out you come....
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ToraToraTora. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
We have not had a vote Canary. And will we ever get a proper vote or would it be one of those EU "vote until you give the right answer"?
I too have also warned on here that Germany is achieving through stealth what they failed to do in two world wars.
I think the only marching we will see will come from the Germans - across Europe accompanied by panzers.
The PM is in a prime position. He can withhold money he can get us out the EU. I strongly suspect the EU would fall apart if we left though. Cant see the Germans wanting to pay for their domination.
I too have also warned on here that Germany is achieving through stealth what they failed to do in two world wars.
I think the only marching we will see will come from the Germans - across Europe accompanied by panzers.
The PM is in a prime position. He can withhold money he can get us out the EU. I strongly suspect the EU would fall apart if we left though. Cant see the Germans wanting to pay for their domination.
The Labour Party do not get a say in electing the Prime Minister if the Conservatives win the election. The Party that wins the election decides who their leader is, and that person becomes Prime Minister.
The EU works in a similar way. The centre right EPP party got the most MEPs elected, and they chose Juncker as commissioner. After that it is simple arithmetic, the EPP have 220 votes and Cameron's Euro Skeptic Party has 59 votes. So Juncker gets elected.
The clever bit in EU land is to be part of one of the two big parties, the Conservatives or the Socialists. If you marginalise yourself by forming a small group, you take yourself out of the big decisions that effect the Country. In 2009 Cameron left the largest group, the EPP conservatives, and form his own group. The result is that the British Conservatives can be out voted on everything.
Juncker is not a marxist he is a conservative. The far right UKiP supports his nomination.
Cameron has put his own interests in front of the countrys. The reason he left the EPP was to get his party's Euro Skeptics off his back and not give him trouble. By leaving the largest group of conservatives he gave away any influence he had on picking a commissioner.
All of his isolation is down to his own mistakes. And he is humiliating the country as he sulks.
The EU works in a similar way. The centre right EPP party got the most MEPs elected, and they chose Juncker as commissioner. After that it is simple arithmetic, the EPP have 220 votes and Cameron's Euro Skeptic Party has 59 votes. So Juncker gets elected.
The clever bit in EU land is to be part of one of the two big parties, the Conservatives or the Socialists. If you marginalise yourself by forming a small group, you take yourself out of the big decisions that effect the Country. In 2009 Cameron left the largest group, the EPP conservatives, and form his own group. The result is that the British Conservatives can be out voted on everything.
Juncker is not a marxist he is a conservative. The far right UKiP supports his nomination.
Cameron has put his own interests in front of the countrys. The reason he left the EPP was to get his party's Euro Skeptics off his back and not give him trouble. By leaving the largest group of conservatives he gave away any influence he had on picking a commissioner.
All of his isolation is down to his own mistakes. And he is humiliating the country as he sulks.
If we stop paying we would have effectively left the EU. Cameron does not want to leave because he believes being part of the EU is good for the country.
If we do leave, it should be by the will of the people after a vote. Not on the whim of a party leader who has screwed up by appeasing his swivel eyed loons.
If we do leave, it should be by the will of the people after a vote. Not on the whim of a party leader who has screwed up by appeasing his swivel eyed loons.
UKIP supports Juncker? Are you sure about that? That's either turkeys voting for Christmas or a canny ruse to help the EU become even more unpopular and strengthen the case for leaving...
Juncker's election is undemocratic, although by now we should be a bit used to that in the EU. But if Cameron made that threat it would be equally undemocratic, because it would mean leaving the EU pretty much overnight -- before he's consulted the people, before he's tried to renegotiate the terms of our membership. How is that the best thing to do? It's utterly ridiculous to suggest it as a viable option.
If Cameron wants to leave the EU then he'd better ask the country first, because it's not clear that as a whole we do despite the rise in support for UKIP. Lest we forget, they got about 29% of a 30%-odd turnout despite the popularity of Farage -- that's not exactly massive support across the country.
This isn't about Cameron needing to grow a pair -- this is about the awkward position he's found himself in by being the head of a party divided on Europe. I'm not trying to be anti-British here -- if we do hold a referendum, and I certainly hope so, then we will hopefully see what the country wants and Parliament had better not ignore the result. But realistically, Cameron can't make that threat. It would be just as undemocratic as the election of Juncker, if not more so.
Juncker's election is undemocratic, although by now we should be a bit used to that in the EU. But if Cameron made that threat it would be equally undemocratic, because it would mean leaving the EU pretty much overnight -- before he's consulted the people, before he's tried to renegotiate the terms of our membership. How is that the best thing to do? It's utterly ridiculous to suggest it as a viable option.
If Cameron wants to leave the EU then he'd better ask the country first, because it's not clear that as a whole we do despite the rise in support for UKIP. Lest we forget, they got about 29% of a 30%-odd turnout despite the popularity of Farage -- that's not exactly massive support across the country.
This isn't about Cameron needing to grow a pair -- this is about the awkward position he's found himself in by being the head of a party divided on Europe. I'm not trying to be anti-British here -- if we do hold a referendum, and I certainly hope so, then we will hopefully see what the country wants and Parliament had better not ignore the result. But realistically, Cameron can't make that threat. It would be just as undemocratic as the election of Juncker, if not more so.
// Juncker's election is undemocratic //
The process might not be perfect, but it is a damn sight more democratic than all the previous head of commissioners were elected. That was done behind lised doors and by national leaders. Which meant the Conservatives won the UK Euro election in 2009, but Gordon Brown got to cast the UK vote for commissioner.
It was decided to change that system before this years election. The party that got the most votes would nominate a candidate for commissioner. The conservative EPP got the most votes so they chose Junckers. What Cameron is doing is undemocratic. His party came third in the Euro elections but he wants to vote on the commissioner.
The outgoing socialists support the Junckers nomination, and the remaining groups do not have enough MEPs to vote for anyone else.
The process might not be perfect, but it is a damn sight more democratic than all the previous head of commissioners were elected. That was done behind lised doors and by national leaders. Which meant the Conservatives won the UK Euro election in 2009, but Gordon Brown got to cast the UK vote for commissioner.
It was decided to change that system before this years election. The party that got the most votes would nominate a candidate for commissioner. The conservative EPP got the most votes so they chose Junckers. What Cameron is doing is undemocratic. His party came third in the Euro elections but he wants to vote on the commissioner.
The outgoing socialists support the Junckers nomination, and the remaining groups do not have enough MEPs to vote for anyone else.
Cameron will not support ANY of the nominees, yet is anti the conservative candidate. I am genuinely perplexed by his anti Junckers stance.
The alternatives are
1. A Socialist - Martin Schulz
2. A federalist who wants MORE EU integration - Guy Verhofstadt
3. A communist - Alexis Tsipras
4. A couple of Greens - José Bové and Ska Keller
I gather Cameron has got his wish for a vote today. When everyone else will back Junckers and Cameron and his British Conservatives will be isolated.
The alternatives are
1. A Socialist - Martin Schulz
2. A federalist who wants MORE EU integration - Guy Verhofstadt
3. A communist - Alexis Tsipras
4. A couple of Greens - José Bové and Ska Keller
I gather Cameron has got his wish for a vote today. When everyone else will back Junckers and Cameron and his British Conservatives will be isolated.
The comparison between Mr Juncker's "election" and that of the UK Prime Minister is inappropriate. To be pedantic the UK Prime Minister is not actually elected by the party he or she leads. Following a General Election the Queen invites whoever she thinks is most able to form a government of ministers to do so. But being practical when voting in a UK General Election voters know who the candidates for that invitation are. Whoever that person eventually is will be accountable, via MPs, to the House of Commons.
However, Mr Juncker is not being proposed as Prime Minister of Europe. He is being proposed as the President of the European Commission. This body consists of unelected commissioners and has the sole power to frame and propose EU legislation, to enforce compliance with EU treaties and to shape national budgets. The elected representatives whom people voted for a few weeks ago (MEPs) have no such powers.
When people went to the polls in early May I doubt that anybody outside Luxembourg had ever heard of Jean-Claude Juncker and many in the Grand Duchy probably wished they hadn't. His CV is interesting. He was one of the principle architects of the single currency (which he may like to keep quiet about). His committment to an open and democratic EU is perhaps questionable. Ahead of the French vote on the European Constitution in 2005 he said: "If it's a Yes, we will say 'on we go', and if it's a No we will say 'we continue'". In 2011 he said "monetary policy is a serious issue - we should discuss this in secret, in the Eurogroup. I am for secret, dark debates".
For me he sums up everything that is wrong with the EU. Anti-democratic, secretive, contemptuous of the electorate. But that's the trouble with democracy (EU style). Everybody gets what nobody has a say in.
However, Mr Juncker is not being proposed as Prime Minister of Europe. He is being proposed as the President of the European Commission. This body consists of unelected commissioners and has the sole power to frame and propose EU legislation, to enforce compliance with EU treaties and to shape national budgets. The elected representatives whom people voted for a few weeks ago (MEPs) have no such powers.
When people went to the polls in early May I doubt that anybody outside Luxembourg had ever heard of Jean-Claude Juncker and many in the Grand Duchy probably wished they hadn't. His CV is interesting. He was one of the principle architects of the single currency (which he may like to keep quiet about). His committment to an open and democratic EU is perhaps questionable. Ahead of the French vote on the European Constitution in 2005 he said: "If it's a Yes, we will say 'on we go', and if it's a No we will say 'we continue'". In 2011 he said "monetary policy is a serious issue - we should discuss this in secret, in the Eurogroup. I am for secret, dark debates".
For me he sums up everything that is wrong with the EU. Anti-democratic, secretive, contemptuous of the electorate. But that's the trouble with democracy (EU style). Everybody gets what nobody has a say in.
As for the alternatives, perhaps "none of the above" would be a useful option. The EU is an outdated, anti-democratic corrupt organisation which serves only to enrich the lives of its apparatchiks. It is time it was consigned to the dustbin of history along with its wretched single currency. If not that then the UK should withdraw forthwith. Then we would have no need to worry who is "elected" to its most powerful position.
Junkers merely proposes policy to the EU. That is put to the MEPs we have elected to represent us.
Nigel Farage and Syed Kamall and the rest vote for or against what he puts before them. He has no power to implement anything, he offers a direction, and the MEPs decide if they want to go that way.
Mr Mandelson did little hadm when he was commissioner, and neither will Junckers.
Nigel Farage and Syed Kamall and the rest vote for or against what he puts before them. He has no power to implement anything, he offers a direction, and the MEPs decide if they want to go that way.
Mr Mandelson did little hadm when he was commissioner, and neither will Junckers.
Latest Posts
News3 mins ago
Music6 mins ago
Body & Soul10 mins ago
Body & Soul13 mins ago
Crosswords14 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.