Brexit the economy and house prices part 7: Brexit Harder

Rinoa

SouthLondonUser wrote: »

I don't now enough about those people to have an informed opinion on whether/how qualified they are for the jobs.

However, I can and will comment on the usual nonsense Brexiters love to shout from the rooftops about lack of democracy accountability etc.

"You didn't vote them in and can't vote them out." Ehm, how is that different from the Central Bank Governor of pretty much any modern democracy?
Is the author advocating that central bank governors should be voted directly by the people (in which case he'd be wrong) or is he decrying only the ECB but forgetting that it's the same all over the world (in which case he'd be a hypocrite)

Christine Legarde was found guilty of negligence by a French Court of approving 400m euros of taxpayers money to a controversial businessman.

She's now been appointed governor of the European Central Bank.

Only in the EU.

Enterprise_1701C

How many times do we have to tell people.

In this country you do not vote for the PM, you vote for the party.

It has always been so.

borntobefree

I have to say you Brexiteers are sounding less and less convincing - you’re arguments sound feeble, unconvincing and flimsy.

Just saying.

mayonnaise

I just wonder why our resident Brexiteers are so concerned with who will head up the EU Parliament and Commission and Central Bank etc...

We're guaranteed to be out on 31/10. Do or die. Because Boris said so. And Boris is a man of his word.

SouthLondonUser

Rinoa wrote: »

Christine Legarde was found guilty of negligence by a French Court of approving 400m euros of taxpayers money to a controversial businessman.

She's now been appointed governor of the European Central Bank.

Only in the EU.

If true (I don't know the details), it may mean she is a poor choice for the job; It doesn't mean that EU electors should vote for the ECB governor directly.

I ask again:

"You didn't vote them in and can't vote them out." Ehm, how is that different from the Central Bank Governor of pretty much any modern democracy?
Is the author advocating that central bank governors should be voted directly by the people (in which case he'd be wrong) or is he decrying only the ECB but forgetting that it's the same all over the world (in which case he'd be a hypocrite)

SouthLondonUser

westernpromise wrote: »

I wasn't expecting you to know any of the answers. Nobody does. But do we agree that there is absolutely no connection whatsoever between the results of the European Parliament elections, and the composition, goals, and agenda of the EU Commission - correct?

Not quite. You're missing the bit where the European Parliament still needs to vote for the Commission!!!

westernpromise wrote: »

There is no procedural reason why the supranational governing body could not be composed entirely of nominees from parties defeated in those elections, implementing their rejected agenda?

Apart from the 'procedural reason' which requires the European Parliament to still vote to approve the Commission. This is a bit of a biggie to me, don't you think?

Commissioners are nominated by national governments. There could be a scenario in which most national governments are left-wing but then the majority of MEPs are right-wing, or viceversa.

What would you propose? Would you be in favour of giving more power to MEPs? This would make the EU institutions more directly accountable, but then it would mean that MEPs would have more power than national governments. Would you be OK with that? or would that be anathema to the Brexiters?

Again, it shocks me that most Brexiters fail to realise that the other main power along the MEPs is the national governments, and not some random unelected bureaucratic apparatus!!

I don't get your Lib dem comparison.

SouthLondonUser

westernpromise wrote: »

We hear this every time a PM changes, from those who oppose the party in power. In fact in the last 60 years there have been half a dozen such changes; it is entirely routine.

So what? This doesn't mean that it cannot or shouldn't be questioned or criticised. Especially to expose the hypocrisy of those who decry the indirect democracy of the EU but seem totally oblivious to the cases of more egregiously indirect democracy in the UK.

Regardless of the EU, this system where the next PM is de facto decided by a tiny unrepresentative unelected and unaccountable number of people is perverse. At least in other democracies there is a super-partes role who has a say in this and who tries to mediate (president of the republic, speaker of the house etc). Not here. And the fact that it's always been like this doesn't make it right.

westernpromise

SouthLondonUser wrote: »

If true (I don't know the details), it may mean she is a poor choice for the job; It doesn't mean that EU electors should vote for the ECB governor directly.

I ask again:

Is there any example of a central bank governor being a convicted financial criminal whose conviction the state decided to ignore?

westernpromise

SouthLondonUser wrote: »

What would you propose?

That commissioners be selected from the MEPs of whichever party won the vote in each country.

westernpromise

SouthLondonUser wrote: »

So what? This doesn't mean that it cannot or shouldn't be questioned or criticised. Especially to expose the hypocrisy of those who decry the indirect democracy of the EU but seem totally oblivious to the cases of more egregiously indirect democracy in the UK.

Regardless of the EU, this system where the next PM is de facto decided by a tiny unrepresentative unelected and unaccountable number of people is perverse. At least in other democracies there is a super-partes role who has a say in this and who tries to mediate (president of the republic, speaker of the house etc). Not here. And the fact that it's always been like this doesn't make it right.

So you think the last GE should be rerun because the voters didn't understand what they might be getting?