BREXIT price rises

ash28

Generali wrote: »

That's great but it's simply not true.

The EP can propose laws under the special legislative procedures in areas like taxation and law (justice). It also was the power to refuse to pass laws proposed by the Commission.

The Commission can't simply unilaterally pass laws into power, if the EP fails to pass the legislation by a simple majority then the legislation fails and is not passed into law.

The EP can propose legislation through the Commission, the EP can't initiate legislation on its own, only the Commission has legislative initiative, except for common foreign and security policy, where it lies in the hands of EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. The EP can put proposals to the Commission but the Commission doesn't have to accept proprosals for initiatives but has to give a reason when it doesn't.


Under Ordinary Legislation the EP can reject or amend legislation.
It works like this: the Commission sends a proposal for a new legislation to the Council of the EU and the EP for their evaluation, the proposal might be passed back and forth between the EP and the Council several times before consensus is reached and a decision made.

For Ordinary Legislatation the EP and Council of the EU are the legislators.

Under Special Legislation there is Consultation and Consent and the Council of the EU is the sole legislator.

Consultation, the EP has to be consulted on legislation and give an opinion but that opinion does not have to acted on, only received by the Council. It can accept, reject or amend legislation but Council does not have act on EP's opinion.

Consultation is used for internal market exemptions, competition law and some international agreements.

Consent, EP can reject or accept but not amend legislation and there has to be an absolute majority. The Council cannot over rule the EP.

Consent is used for the accession of new countries, some international agreements, serious breaches of fundamental rights and withdrawal from the EU.

Nothing about the EU is simple......

PaulW1965

Tromking wrote: »

Jill Smith QC sounds great, trouble is she's gone a bit 'native' during her time in Brussels (hypothetically) how do I get rid?

You can't. You don't get to vote her in, you don't get to vote her out.

What happens when Jill Smith QC gets into bed with big business? We did'nt vote her in, we can't vote her out.

Before you know it,we don't live in a country with a society any more - we live in a business park - as Archbishop of Canterbury Welsey said you don't live in a home - it's more like living in a hotel. Well, actually imho it's more like living in an international airport terminal.

Countries are homes not trading areas. The EU has become so influenced by business that they have lost sight of this.

setmefree2

PaulW1965 wrote: »

You can't. You don't get to vote her in, you don't get to vote her out.

What happens when Jill Smith QC gets into bed with big business? We did'nt vote her in, we can't vote her out.

When Jeremy Corbyn voted against the Maastricht treaty in 1993, he declared it was because the EU had handed control to an unelected set of bankers

Jeremy Corbyn

I thank the Foreign Secretary for giving way. I assure him that at least 60 Labour Members voted against the Bill on Second Reading and I am sure that they will vote against the Maastricht treaty again tonight, primarily because it takes away from national Parliaments the power to set economic policy and hands it over to an unelected set of bankers who will impose the economic policies of price stability, deflation and high unemployment throughout the European Community.

No wonder he couldn't fully get behind Remain.

PaulW1965

setmefree2 wrote: »

No wonder he couldn't fully get behind Remain.

The Remainers seem happy to tolerate little change, leaving generations of Europeans to live under a semi-democracy. The real power, meanwhile, sits with large corporations, banks and elites.

You do wonder what our ancestors fought for - they fought for freedom and democracy - just so it could be given away for cheap ice-cream. Unilever Chairman Paul Polmon described Brexit as being down to "irresponsible politicians". It was obvious he never thought Brits should have any say on how they are governed. Makes me sick.

BobQ

kinger101 wrote: »

Your comparisons with the Civil Service are disingenuous. The House of Commons has the power to initiate legislation. The European Parliament doesn't. The European Parliament is very much the second chamber.

The Commission cannot by any stretch of the imagination be compared to the UK Civil Service.

Either you do not understand the meaning of the word disingenuous or you are saying I am being insincere by stating something I know to be untrue. If the latter you might at least do me the courtesy of stating what I said is untrue and what evidence you have to support such an assertion.

The EP will never be an exact copy of any national Parliament. How can it be? I never said that it was.

It is true that a UK MP can propose a new bill as an individual. But in practice it will never go anywhere without the help of the civil service to draft the bill. Also they have no chance of it succeeding unless they win a lottery of backbenchers to see how gets the parliamentary time to present it. A lottery not based on the merits of the Bill, just a random draw: how democratic is that? Even then unless the Government takes it up or otherwise supports it it will go nowhere.

EU law is initiated by many means. Yes the Commision can initiate but many laws come from national governments through the Council of Minister, from committees in the EP and from the European Citizens Initiative.Individual MEPs may also propose laws but these need the support of a Parliamentary committee before submission to the Commission.

The analogy with the UK Civil Service is not exact but it is fairly close to reality.

gfplux

Four weeks after the vote there seems far too much energy being spent on discussing the EU.
That time has passed. We voted out. We are leaving.
When you decide to leave your club you.....just leave.

BobQ

Tromking wrote: »

When Theresa May instructs her civil servants to draft new laws, she usually does so on the strength of a manifesto that's been voted on by the people. Can that be said of the EU commissioners?

You think all legislation is in a manifesto?

You speak of accountability?

Have you never seen:

http://ec.europa.eu/atwork/key-documents/index_en.htm

Now in your democratically accountable world when do you recall the UK Civil Service setting out a detailed workplan for next year, one endorsed by the democratically elected parliament and the Ministers?

Feel free to post a link.............

BobQ

Kohoutek wrote: »

I heard through acquaintance of family about a person who voted leave because she thought it would increase her benefits and another one who voted leave to get more stamps on her passport.

Maybe we need a thread to see who can name the most silly reason for voting for Brexit?

BobQ

Tromking wrote: »

You can't help yourself can you?
Someone points out reasonably why the EU system of governance is not to their taste and you reply with that dismissive load of old waffle.
Do one!

So you run out of an argument and you start calling things waffle....

BobQ

Tromking wrote: »

You don't see his post as unreasonable as it chimes in with your own biased narrative
on the referendum I'm guessing.
I was given a vote and chose to base my decision to leave on the democracy deficit of the EU and you I assume chose to remain for other reasons, one of which in my view was a willingness to compromise on democratic accountability for a general feeling of wellbeing that being part of the EU affords.
Couldn't give a stuff about immigration.

Yes voting based on not understanding the facts is a legitimate aspect of democracy, but having it pointed out afterwards is never pleasant as it carries the implication that you lack intelligence, judgement, understanding or whatever.