In a letter to the Telegraph today, Open Europe's Chairman Lord Leach notes:This dispute is largely the product of the wording of the Lisbon Treaty. One part states that the election of the Commission President is the joint responsibility of the European Parliament and the European Council; another that the European Council shall “propose” a candidate to the parliament for election.
David Cameron was entitled to take seriously the widespread support on the Continent for his speech last year in which he spelled out the need for EU reform. He was also entitled to assume that the selection process would be led by elected leaders of member states, rather than dictated by the largest “political group” in the European Parliament. The absurd portrayal of Mr Juncker as the champion of pan-European democracy is a cloak for German indecision and the failure of nerve of several EU leaders in the face of the European Parliament’s ambition to replace national democracies with its own ersatz alternative. Mr Juncker’s appointment would be a bitter blow to the pro-European cause in Britain, bolstering the Outists’ line that the EU is unreformable.
6 comments:
And so........?
* The Lisbon Treaty is in part the cause of the current argument. Well yes, along with causing plenty of problems elsewhere. And so, who is about to propose and endorse a new treaty to reform it? Only Dave it would appear.
* Dave is entitled to make a fuss about the way things are being handled. Well yes, he's PM of the one of the largest EU countries and he certainly has a point. But who's listening?
* The German government is indecisive and other governments just wish it would all go away. Well yes; that's also normal for EU problems isn't it?
* This argument and the refusal of the EU bureaucracy to listen or change bolsters the Outists' line that the EU is not reformable. Again yes. The EU continually does things to bolster the Outist's argument but who in the EU cares?
Like it or not, the EU will have to reform sooner or later; either via democratic debate or in response to the disaffection of the minority of non-federalists it presently chooses to ignore. If it doesn't, it will just travel further down the anti-democratic road to ultimate dictatorship. Us 'Outists' have not given the EU the pseudonym the EUSSR for nothing.
So Open Europe. You have stated the obvious now let's hear some sensible solutions that you think will work, taking into account the real world where Dave's sensible bleatings will be ignored (even by countries that often go along with the UK like the Poles), the Germans will dither depending upon what was in yesterday's newspapers and the Brussels machine will keep rumbling on to ever closer union, taking ever more power from the people it perports to represent and listening to no-one.
If from now on the leader from the biggest group becomes president. What is the point of the council proposing a candidate. It will be automatic, the leader of the group will be president. This will reduce the potential candidate pool.
"This dispute is largely the product of the wording of the Lisbon Treaty"
Nope, it's a delayed action consequence of the Maastricht Treaty agreed by the Tory MP Major and approved by almost all the Tory MPs at the time.
Before the Maastricht Treaty the EU Parliament had nothing whatsoever to do with the appointment of the Commission and/or its President, but Major agreed that it should not only become involved but should be granted a veto.
Anonimous: I understand your wish to fire Cameron who has no other merit than being the leader of the leading party in UK's past elections. Yet consider a simple fact: if you really want the get what a democratic process means:
Take next elections to EP and table on a leading candidate of SDP. The Council could still propose the EPP spitzenkandidat should he/she be able to conform a majority in the Parliament....
The Council could still today propose Schilz or even Verhofstadt or even Stypras or Bové and the EP could vote for or reject it.
What is so amazing for British about the Council being supposed to propose a democratic leader of a democratically elected group?
Is it better to pick up a servant of the USA like the man of Açores in 2003 and to keep him in post for ten long years?
I assume that the point is that none of the present leaders are British onr Anglophile... That's really pity but the outcome of DC moves to single his party and his Country, britain!
VAE VICTIS
Looks clearly that the EU is not able to react to the eroding popular platform for its existence.
Thinking that appointing a Mr Juncker and a lot of talk (but no walk) about reform will do the job is beyond pathetic.
The issue is that traditional politics has disconnected from the electorate (and in the EU even more than in most membercountries).
This is getting worse iso better simply as basically all the strategies to counter that suck big time (like the strategies against the populists).
Hard to see that dysenfranchised voters feel their trust restored by appointing a Juncker. Most of those will see it as another slap in the face.
Looks like approval trend will go further down and the risk of calamities will rise further.
In reality only the S&D, EPP can form a majority so they will work together. This time Juncker Comm Pres, Schultz carries on EP president. Candidate pool reduced, little choice. EU goes on as before little reform voters get m ore anti eu, eu needs a reformer not carry on as before.
Post a Comment