Article

2004-11-28 Europe

What are MEPs good for? Only sticking together, it seems

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Bulldog 2004-11-28 06:16|| || Front Page|| [11125 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 One thing that drives Europhiles bonkers is to even suggest the axioms of European "failure." Failure can mean many things, from the EU devolving into a collapsed confederation with a powerless rump parliament, to a continually brawling pair or trio of competing blocs that stalemate any mutual decisions, to the suggestion that undemocratic Bureaucratocracy is doomed to failure. The bottom line is that Europe has no glue to hold it together, no philosophy of the people, no commonality of origin, direction or purpose. It is not held together by a strong belief in freedom and the rights of man, and it has no document to succinctly express their core values. It shows all the prospects of the Holy Roman Empire, which was neither Holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire; and was in slow decline almost from the moment of its inception.

Posted by Anonymoose 2004-11-28 10:22:23 AM|| 2004-11-28 10:22:23 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 Dear God... that's just pathetic. I can't think of any other word for it. And from this is supposed to come greatness? Grandeur? Gloire?

You really should consider leaving, Bulldog. Really.

Posted by Dave D. 2004-11-28 11:57:57 AM|| 2004-11-28 11:57:57 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 Well, I see why Aris is so beside himself in his odas regarding EU. If those people are in, then Aris has his chances too--albeit he may lack the proper credentials (not red or corrupt enuff and such)--and there is a chance that that once again, Aris-tocracy would rule.

Posted by CornÃ®liÃ«s 2004-11-28 12:18:27 PM|| 2004-11-28 12:18:27 PM|| Front Page Top

#4 Yes, please Bulldog, do consider leaving the EU. Alongside the rest of the United Kingdom.

UK won't though. We know that already.
---

As for the rest it's bitterly funny how the article distorts things. It says "The Latvian candidate, Ingrida Udre, was withdrawn as a candidate. Her crime? To tell MEPs that she favoured tax competition."

*Really*?? Because what *I* had heard, was that the problem with Ingrida Udre was that she faced allegations of irregularities in the funding of her political party. Irregularities which unlike the case with Mr. Barrot were discovered before the vote took place.

It fell to a man called Nigel Farage, capo of the UK Independence Party, to inform the chamber of Mr Barrot's conviction. The pro-EU parties had not looked into his background because, deep down, they didn't want to find anything.

And what is the reason, pray tell, that the UKIP party did not inform the chamber *before* the vote on the Commissioners took place? What is the reason that Mr. Nigel Farage didn't see fit to reveal his information a mere week or two earlier, before the vote took place? Is it because in that case Mr. Barrot might have indeed been replaced, and then you wouldn't have a thing to be scandalized about?

As for the six ex-communist Commissioners, what the article conveniently forgets to mention, is that each country's government appoints its *own* Commissioner from its own ranks. So instead of saying that there are six ex-communists Commissioners, we should have been told the exactly equivalent "there are six countries in the EU with ex-communist parties in control".

So, do you want the EU to be able to tell to its member states that they must choose representatives from *outside* their democratically-elected ruling parties? Is that really what you want? On my part, I'm all in favour of supranationalism and all in favour of a President appointing his own Commission with no national say in each appointment, but am not so sure *you* would be.

And as a sidenote, do you want to make a wild guess whether these states with former communists in command belong to "old" or "new" Europe, and whether the same former-communists you now despise were the very same former-communists that you praised for supporting USA in Iraq?

And "Cornilies", don't try to guess at my motives ever again. I don't have much humour in the midst of enemies.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-11-28 5:20:49 PM|| 2004-11-28 5:20:49 PM|| Front Page Top

#5 I don't have much humour in the midst of enemies

enemies? Not hardly, Aris. I remain a devoted skeptic, nothing more. Remember that. There's no personal animus, as there is for, say...Murat. To date, I don't recall you ever wishing death and injury on American troops. I can accept that we disagree vehemently on the benefits of the EU, no problem, but that doesn't make us enemies IMHO
Frank

Posted by Frank G 2004-11-28 5:27:27 PM|| 2004-11-28 5:27:27 PM|| Front Page Top

#6 Oh, lighten up, Aris! I think that Aris-tocracy is pretty cool coinage. :-)

"I'm all in favour of supranationalism and all in favour of a President appointing his own Commission with no national say in each appointment".

That would be then new Aris-tocracy. LOLLOL

Posted by CornÃ®liÃ«s 2004-11-28 5:30:32 PM|| 2004-11-28 5:30:32 PM|| Front Page Top

#7 *Really*?? Because what *I* had heard, was that the problem with Ingrida Udre was that she faced allegations of irregularities in the funding of her political party. Irregularities which unlike the case with Mr. Barrot were discovered before the vote took place.

LOL There are a few of reasons being given for Udre's rejection. For example, the unproven allegations of financial irrregularity. Which, unlike Barrot's fraud, are unproven and allegations. Barrot was actually convicted of campaign funds embezzlement and would have spent time in prison if he hadn't been saved by a convenient presidential amnesty. Other reasons for Udre's rejection? A combination of incompetence and political horse trading, at least according to Der Tagesspiegel and others. Not that incompetence alone is enough to bar someone from being a Commissioner, as Laszlo Kovacs would attest (deemed too incompetent for the weighty responsibilities of the Environment, he's been given Udre's lowly Taxation post instead).

It almost sounds as though you're criticising UKIP for pointing out Barrot's criminal history. Surely that can't be the case. I can't believe you would resent the actions of the only group in the European Parliament who actually bothered to do their homework regarding members of the new Commission. As you seem to be so critical of UKIP for making their discovery, I wonder whether you would rather that no one had found out about Barrot's history, and that he'd had been waved through to the post unhindered? If that is the case, how can you cite mere allegations of financial irregularities as a resason to reject Udre? If allegations of financial irregularity were suddenly enough to bar people from holding office, I think there would be quite a few vacancies opening up in Brussels.

And what is the reason, pray tell, that the UKIP party did not inform the chamber *before* the vote on the Commissioners took place? What is the reason that Mr. Nigel Farage didn't see fit to reveal his information a mere week or two earlier, before the vote took place?

Poor Little Aris. Welcome to the world of politics. People aren't always nice to their political enemies in the way you seem to expect. If the opposition have left their goal open, it's still acceptable to score. It's naive to be asking why UKIP won such a spectacular victory. You should be asking how the hell they were given such an easy one. Why did the French think a man with such a blot on his record would be suitable for such a post, and why, apparently, didn't anyone else bother to check him out? Is it that hard to find an honest politician in Europe?

As for the six ex-communist Commissioners...

And you wouldn't object to six ex-Nazi Commissioners, would you? If you live in a one-party state and you just desperately need to be in power, there's simply no choice but to join the anti-democratic socialist autocrats, right? A profession's a profession, after all. Not all politicians have the luxury of being able to cultivate and employ a conscience.

Posted by H J Simpson 2004-11-28 7:22:15 PM|| 2004-11-28 7:22:15 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 D'oh! Was me.

Posted by Bulldog 2004-11-28 7:23:01 PM|| 2004-11-28 7:23:01 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 And "Cornilies", don't try to guess at my motives ever again. I don't have much humour in the midst of enemies.

Or I'll scratch you're fucking eyes out.

Posted by Abdullah of the One Name Only Clan 2004-11-28 7:24:13 PM|| 2004-11-28 7:24:13 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 "Which, unlike Barrot's fraud, are unproven and allegations."

Which unlike Barrot's fraud however was a *known* allegation, it wasn't something the MEP were in complete ignorance of.

Laszlo Kovacs would attest (deemed too incompetent for the weighty responsibilities of the Environment, he's been given Udre's lowly Taxation post instead).

Laszlo Kovacs was deemed incompetent for the responsibilities of the *Energy* department. I assume he was better prepared during his hearing for the Taxation and Customs Union department.

It almost sounds as though you're criticising UKIP for pointing out Barrot's criminal history.

NO!! I attack them for *hiding* it until a time it was politically convenient. Such knowledge should have been shared immediately, if they had it, during the weeks and months that the virtues and vices of the Commissioners were discussed, during the weeks and months *before* the vote on the new Commission. Two Commissioners were removed after those discussions and a third one forced to change portfolios. Why didn't they share such info, to urge that Barrot be likewise removed?

I criticize UKIP for not pointing out *sooner*, if they knew about it. It shows that they don't care a bit about keeping crooks out of office, they only care about scoring political points.

It is morally *criminal* if they withheld such knowledge. An analogy: If before the presidential preliminaries, the Republican party knew that Kerry was a convicted murderer, then they'd have likewise an obligation to give this news to the public, so that the Democrat party itself would remove him. NOT wait until he's the Democrat candidate for President before revealing the damning evidence.

And if a third party knew such info, they should definitely not wait until after Kerry became *president* before revealing the information a day after the election and trying to put a stain on the whole system.

I wonder whether you would rather that no one had found out about Barrot's history, and that he'd had been waved through to the post unhindered?

But the point is that he WAS INDEED waved through to the post unhindered. That's the point of my rage. That the UKIP (intentionally?) waited until *after* Barrot occupied the post before revealing the information. Worse that the ignorance of the other MEPs is knowing and doing NOTHING. Which is what the UKIP may have done. If it knew.

Welcome to the world of politics. People aren't always nice to their political enemies in the way you seem to expect. If the opposition have left their goal open, it's still acceptable to score

Go on scoring then, but don't even pretend you care about corruption, if instead of fighting it, you prefer to only point it out after intentionally allowing it to take position in order to shame your opponents.

As for the six ex-communist Commissioners... And you wouldn't object to six ex-Nazi Commissioners, would you?

I do object to the six ex-communist Commissioners. I suggested changes in the system, didn't I? If Barroso could handpick his own team rather than be dependent on national governments, it'd be unlikely that this right-wing politician would have chosen ex-communists.

Let us hear your own suggestions for creating a system that wouldn't permit ex-communist governments from installing ex-communist Commissioners.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-11-28 7:50:47 PM|| 2004-11-28 7:50:47 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 Have Brussels write a new regulation?

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2004-11-28 8:26:28 PM|| 2004-11-28 8:26:28 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 Thank you, Mrs. Davis, for that non-contribution.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-11-28 8:49:38 PM|| 2004-11-28 8:49:38 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 snarky gets you nowhere, EU boy - answer the question

Posted by Frank G 2004-11-28 9:05:25 PM|| 2004-11-28 9:05:25 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 BTW - "no" is an answer - the rest is left to conjecture, no?

Posted by Frank G 2004-11-28 9:06:37 PM|| 2004-11-28 9:06:37 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 One Volk! One Reich! One Euro!

Posted by trawling for allan 2004-11-28 9:07:24 PM|| 2004-11-28 9:07:24 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 You're welcome, Aris. The feeling's mutual.

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2004-11-28 9:10:17 PM|| 2004-11-28 9:10:17 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 "snarky gets you nowhere, EU boy - answer the question."

That was a question? Didn't people here say that only asshats answer normally what's a sarcastic comment?

But if "Have Brussels write a new regulation" wasn't meant sarcastically, then *no*, it's the treaties that say Commissioners are nominated by the member states. So, if you want to stop ex-communist parties in government from nominating ex-communists, then it's an amendment to the treaties that is required, AFAIK.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-11-28 9:17:36 PM|| 2004-11-28 9:17:36 PM|| Front Page Top

00:16 RWV
23:16 lex
23:01 lex
22:58 lex
22:52 Barbara Skolaut
22:49 lex
22:37 BH
22:34 Ian F
22:32 mojo
22:19 Zenster
22:10 jackal
22:08 jackal
22:03 Zenster
21:59 Richard Aubrey
21:57 jackal
21:53 Frank G
21:52 Frank G
21:46 Monk
21:45 lex
21:44 jackal
21:43 Random thoughts
21:38 Matt K.
21:38 RWV
21:37 Zenster