View previous topic | View next topic

How MEPs serve us

Page 4 of 5
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

bobwilson
680019.  Sun Mar 07, 2010 10:36 pm Reply with quote

samivel wrote:
bobwilson wrote:
samivel wrote:
I never said you couldn't complain about the performance of an unelected official. But that isn't what you were doing. You were complaining about the very fact that Mr Van Rompuy was appointed rather than elected.


No I wasn't. I was complaining about the fact that Rumpy-pumpy got the job which he is singularly incapable of doing as so eloquently described (unusually) by Mr F.


Well, what you posted was

bobwilson wrote:
the real issue - which is that Mr Rumpy-pumpy has no mandate from the European people;


I suppose you're going to say that this means you were complaining about Mr Van Rompuy's suitability for the role, but the words you used look awfully like someone complaining because the position was filled without a public vote.


Actually, what I posted was:
Quote:
which is that Mr Rumpy-pumpy has no mandate from the European people; has no status in international affairs; and has clearly been chosen as the "John Major" option - no doubt wearing his underpants outside his trousers.


A mandate doesn't necessarily require a public (or even private) vote. It does require a level of confidence in the ability of the person appointed to be able to do the job.

Since Mr Rumpy-pumpy's job is to represent 500m people in a purely symbolic role he is on a par with (for instance) the Queen or the Pope.
Both the Queen and the Pope have a long tradition of appointments and the failure to challenge the process lends a degree of legitimacy to their status. What has happened with Mr Rumpy-pumpy is that an entirely new process has been inaugurated with (it seems) the sole purpose of installing Mr Rumpy-pumpy into the position.

I have no objection to creating the role of European President. I have no objection to deciding a process by which that role is filled. I DO have an objection to creating the role, deciding the process and filling the role without consulting the people that it's meant to represent all in one fell swoop.

I also object to being told that the post of European President is a purely symbolic role which is meant to provide a dynamic face for Europe - and then having a non-entity thrust upon me.

IF the European president has any powers (which apparently he doesn't) then, despite my reservations about the stupidity of the electorate, he should have been subject to either a universal vote, or alternatively a transparent process by which the postholder was chosen.

If he doesn't have any powers and is filling a purely symbolic role (which is apparently the case) then the entire idea of the post should have been the subject of a universal vote.

Mr F is clearly an idiot (anyone who allows themselves to get drawn into the side issue of Belgium's status as a country is obviously in need of psychiatric treatment) but on this issue he is entirely correct. Mr Rumpy-pumpy looks like a failed bank manager, walks like a failed bank manager, talks like a failed bank manager - and if it looks like, talks like and walks like a duck - then it's a duck.

My bet is that we won't hear from Mr Rumpy-pumpy again - he's clearly an idiot in the John Major mould put into place with the intention that he'll distract attention from the much more serious issues going on. He's failed as a bank manager - and he'll fail as the postholder.

In fact, his only claim to fame will be that he'll turn up as a question on some inane quiz show hosted by Dermot McDonutBrain.

 
djgordy
680080.  Mon Mar 08, 2010 5:39 am Reply with quote

bobwilson wrote:

I also object to being told that the post of European President is a purely symbolic role which is meant to provide a dynamic face for Europe - and then having a non-entity thrust upon me.

IF the European president has any powers (which apparently he doesn't) then, despite my reservations about the stupidity of the electorate, he should have been subject to either a universal vote, or alternatively a transparent process by which the postholder was chosen.

If he doesn't have any powers and is filling a purely symbolic role (which is apparently the case) then the entire idea of the post should have been the subject of a universal vote.



We live in a country in which we don't get to choose either who is head of state or who is the head of the government. When the current head of state dies her successor will be chosen purely on the basis of bloodline. When the current head of government stands down in a few weeks time, whether he or someone else will carry on in that role may well be down to whoever the unelected head of state decides to call to the Palace. I won't have the names of any of the leading contenders on my ballot paper.

bobwilson wrote:
and if it looks like, talks like and walks like a duck - then it's a duck.


If it talks like a duck, then it probably isn't a duck seeing as ducks can't talk.


Last edited by djgordy on Mon Mar 08, 2010 10:17 am; edited 2 times in total

 
samivel
680151.  Mon Mar 08, 2010 9:33 am Reply with quote

bobwilson wrote:
A mandate doesn't necessarily require a public (or even private) vote. It does require a level of confidence in the ability of the person appointed to be able to do the job.


And, on the basis of your opinion, you think nobody has any confidence in Mr Van Rompuy. That's even less representative than the system you're railing against.

Quote:
I also object to being told that the post of European President is a purely symbolic role which is meant to provide a dynamic face for Europe - and then having a non-entity thrust upon me.


Again, solely your opinion of Mr Van Rompuy, based, largely it seems, on fuck all.

Quote:
IF the European president has any powers (which apparently he doesn't) then, despite my reservations about the stupidity of the electorate, he should have been subject to either a universal vote, or alternatively a transparent process by which the postholder was chosen.

If he doesn't have any powers and is filling a purely symbolic role (which is apparently the case) then the entire idea of the post should have been the subject of a universal vote.


So, whether he has any powers or not, a universal vote should have been taken. Yet you don't think the electorate are capable of coming to an informed decision on this (or pretty much anything else), so what exactly would be the point?

No doubt if there had been a vote and Mr Van Rompuy was elected, you'd be railing against the stupidity of the electorate.

Quote:
Mr F is clearly an idiot


Quote:
My bet is that we won't hear from Mr Rumpy-pumpy again - he's clearly an idiot in the John Major mould


There you go again - it must be so hard for you to cope when everyone is so much less intelligent than you are.

Quote:
In fact, his only claim to fame will be that he'll turn up as a question on some inane quiz show hosted by Dermot McDonutBrain.


Which no doubt you'll complain about.

 
bobwilson
680936.  Tue Mar 09, 2010 10:50 pm Reply with quote

Christ – this is such an uphill struggle

I don’t know whether you’re being deliberately contrary Samivel, with your selective partial quotes, or if you really don’t understand.

Maybe it would be easier if I just said what I think should have happened – which rather depends on whether the role Rumpy pumpy occupies is symbolic or functional.

Assuming the role is purely symbolic (which is what we’ve been told) then the question of the creation of the role, and the method for choosing the occupant, should have been subject to a public vote.

On past performance the public will vote stupidly – but since the role is purely symbolic the result would be a fair representation of Europe. We’d get an idiot with a presentable face – my money would be on Jordan as the front runner.

If, however, the role is functional then a different standard applies. The first question is whether it should exist at all – and that should be subjected to a great deal of scrutiny. The second question is who should occupy it, and equally importantly, how that person should be chosen.

Now to your post:

I didn’t say nobody has any confidence in rumpy-pumpy. I said that a mandate requires a level of confidence in the ability of someone (eg rumpy-pumpy) to do the job. From your (and djgordy’s) responses so far it’s quite clear that nobody knows what the bloody job rumpy-pumpy is supposed to be doing. Maybe he’s in charge of counting paper-clips? Maybe he’s really good at it. Since we don’t know what the hell he’s supposed to be doing it’s impossible to say whether he’d be any good at it – and hence it’s impossible to have any confidence in him.

What we were told is that the job entailed presenting a dynamic face for Europe. Outside of these forums I don’t recall seeing any mention of rumpy-pumpy. Frankly, I’d have preferred Jordan – at least she’d have made a splash.

Samivel wrote:
Again, solely your opinion of Mr Van Rompuy, based, largely it seems, on fuck all.


Here we agree. Pretty well everything about rumpy-pumpy and the post is based on fuck all since we have no idea who he is or what he’s supposed to be doing.

Samivel wrote:
So, whether he has any powers or not, a universal vote should have been taken.


Did you read what I’d written or do you just quote blindly? Have a look at the yellow bit that you quoted – you’ll see the words “or alternatively a transparent process by which the postholder was chosen.”

If he’s got any powers (apparently not) then EITHER he should have been selected by universal vote (not my favoured option) OR the process he was selected by should have been open and transparent. If he’s not got any powers then THE IDEA OF THE POST should have been the subject of a universal vote.

Samivel wrote:
No doubt if there had been a vote and Mr Van Rompuy was elected, you'd be railing against the stupidity of the electorate.


Possibly – although if there had been a vote for EITHER both the idea of the post AND the method of selection (if the role has any powers); OR the person to occupy the post if it is purely symbolic – then I doubt very much I’d have a problem with the result. In the former case the electorate would have to agree that the post was necessary and then agree how it would be filled. In the latter case the role would be filled by the most appropriate person (if not Jordan then possibly Terry Wogan? or Peter Andre?).

Now – to djgordy’s post.

Sorry, but you are conflating two different issues.

The Head of State in the UK is a symbolic role. It does have powers but if it ever exercises them (or tries to) they are quickly removed. Their role is purely ceremonial – and if they stray outside those boundaries they are quickly slapped down.

The Head of Government is more complex but not by much. You vote for a person to represent you – that includes their intentions as to who should head the Government.

And as for

djgordy wrote:
If it talks like a duck, then it probably isn't a duck seeing as ducks can't talk.


Haven’t you seen any Disney cartoons?

Samivel wrote:

bobwilson wrote:
In fact, his only claim to fame will be that he'll turn up as a question on some inane quiz show hosted by Dermot McDonutBrain.


Which no doubt you'll complain about.


Yep - I'll complain about any quiz that features Dermot McDickHead because he's thick as pigshit. (And quite why Alexander Armstrong - who isn't an idiot - has allowed himself to be put in the position of announcing reviews of the scores on Pointless when the scores are displayed for all to see in front of the contestants - is beyond me. Accepting money for the purposes of excitement is usually called prostitution. It should be pointed out that prostitution is not illegal - but pimping is. BBC producers take note).

 
Neotenic
680962.  Wed Mar 10, 2010 4:05 am Reply with quote

Quote:
Accepting money for the purposes of excitement is usually called prostitution


I think that's only for a very specific form of excitement.

 
CB27
681098.  Wed Mar 10, 2010 8:28 am Reply with quote

I think I just heard His Fryness crying "Five Dollah" in the background

 
samivel
681115.  Wed Mar 10, 2010 9:21 am Reply with quote

bobwilson wrote:
I donít know whether youíre being deliberately contrary Samivel, with your selective partial quotes, or if you really donít understand.


Hmmm. Well, I'm not sure if I'm being dazzled by your brilliance, or if you genuinely struggle to make concise and coherent points. It's a bit like reading Derrida.

 
Neotenic
681128.  Wed Mar 10, 2010 9:35 am Reply with quote

Quote:
On past performance the public will vote stupidly


I think there's some considerable difference between voting 'stupidly' and in a manner you personally disagree with.

 
suze
681164.  Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:39 am Reply with quote

samivel wrote:
It's a bit like reading Derrida.


Except that Derrida didn't have a blinking clue what he meant any more than did those who tried to read him ...

 
CB27
681177.  Wed Mar 10, 2010 12:43 pm Reply with quote

suze wrote:
samivel wrote:
It's a bit like reading Derrida.


Except that Derrida didn't have a blinking clue what he meant any more than did those who tried to read him ...


<-< >->

:p

 
djgordy
681485.  Thu Mar 11, 2010 5:46 am Reply with quote

suze wrote:

Except that Derrida didn't have a blinking clue what he meant any more than did those who tried to read him ...


Some people did.

Quote:
I'm in love with a Jacques Derrida
Read a page and know what I need to
Take apart my baby's heart
I'm in love


Scritti Politti - Jacques Derrida

 
CB27
681739.  Thu Mar 11, 2010 1:52 pm Reply with quote

Looks like other UKIP MEPs have taken their lead from Farrage:

From about 39 minutes in

 
brunel
681776.  Thu Mar 11, 2010 3:18 pm Reply with quote

CB27 wrote:
Looks like other UKIP MEPs have taken their lead from Farrage:

From about 39 minutes in


Well, that was predictably bone headed, considering that all he could do was go on a personal rant (which was utterly unconnected with the debate in hand), before childishly storming off when his microphone was cut off.
Frankly, it was a relief that he stormed out, given that he had nothing to contribute to the debate.

 
barbados
681870.  Thu Mar 11, 2010 6:27 pm Reply with quote

Would someone be able to tell me why the EU needs an artic policy and what effect it will have on us?

Surely it's something that should be discussed in Westminister

 
CB27
682017.  Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:28 am Reply with quote

I suppose the idea is that it's better for countries to work together openly than independently.

 

Page 4 of 5
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group