European Army
EU commissioners are NOT elected.
If absolute democracy is the issue, perhaps the royal family that constitutes a branch of our own government should be elected?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EU Commissioners are not elected, correct, but they are fully accountable to the EU Parliament which IS democratically elected. Also, every EU member state is represented in the Council of Ministers.
If absolute democracy is the issue, perhaps the royal family that constitutes a branch of our own government should be elected?
If absolute democracy is the issue, perhaps the royal family that constitutes a branch of our own government should be elected?
As for accountability, REALLY...melmothtw...
https://www.politico.eu/article/euro...ut-not-for-me/
One year after European Parliament President Antonio Tajani pledged to bring greater transparency to how MEPs are compensated for expenses, the noble process ended with a loud thump on the parliamentary floor.
Last night, the 15 members of the Parliament’s governing body — a group that included Tajani — voted down measures that would have increased oversight of the so-called General Expenditure Allowance, a fund intended to be used by MEPs to pay for offices and other expenses.
The institution’s 751 MEPs receive €4,416 a month on top of their salaries for expenses, as a lump sum, tax free. This adds up to nearly €200 million in taxpayer money per parliamentary term. These funds are intended to be spent for professional not personal reasons, but MEPs are not required to retain any records or disclose how the money is spent.
Tajani and his colleagues voted against making it mandatory for MEPs to keep receipts of their expenditures — something any business, organization or association has to do for tax reasons, if nothing else.
..really melmothtw...REALLY!
Last edited by glad rag; 14th Sep 2018 at 12:19.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
melmoth, you seem to have a preoccupation with titles. The various, mainly English, armies that subdued the various Welsh, Scottish, and Irish attempts to resist subjugation may not have been named Union Armies but their effect over the centuries was to cement and ensure the formation of the United Kingdom. If you don't see the parallel with the formation of the European Union Army, I'm afraid that I do.
Edited to add that I would not agree that the EU has a bloody past, though it may well have a bloody future. It is Europe that has the bloody past and the irony of the EU is that its formation was to prevent that past becoming the future. As to me being a member of the EU, you are right of course. Hence the present dilemma the United Kingdom finds itself in...
Edited to add that I would not agree that the EU has a bloody past, though it may well have a bloody future. It is Europe that has the bloody past and the irony of the EU is that its formation was to prevent that past becoming the future. As to me being a member of the EU, you are right of course. Hence the present dilemma the United Kingdom finds itself in...
Hmmmm. As I recall a fellow by the name of Adolf Donald was appointed and "fully accountable" to an elected body. How did that turn out?
How can SO many people have been quite SO stupid?
t43562:-
Yes, having gone through a lot of pain the United Kingdom (of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) is now a good thing in my view. However, I am English and other countries within the UK may think differently. That is their right, but so far none have chosen to do so (other than the Irish Republic that caused that new form of the UK). The same is not so for the European Union, as one member has now chosen to leave it. Others may yet follow that lead...
Is the United Kingdom a good thing on the whole or should we break it?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
t43562:-
Yes, having gone through a lot of pain the United Kingdom (of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) is now a good thing in my view. However, I am English and other countries within the UK may think differently. That is their right, but so far none have chosen to do so (other than the Irish Republic that caused that new form of the UK). The same is not so for the European Union, as one member has now chosen to leave it. Others may yet follow that lead...
Yes, having gone through a lot of pain the United Kingdom (of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) is now a good thing in my view. However, I am English and other countries within the UK may think differently. That is their right, but so far none have chosen to do so (other than the Irish Republic that caused that new form of the UK). The same is not so for the European Union, as one member has now chosen to leave it. Others may yet follow that lead...
If you want to include the empire a lot of countries left actually and some not so peacefully. But the result of all that blood and trouble is apparently good and should not change. But anything bigger (anything that English people are not in charge of?) would be bad.
t43562, the Irish Republic did not leave the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland by definition, let alone "Ireland"!
friartuck, the preceding posts of this thread have been about Unions and their armies, in particular the EU and the UK, and not about the Commonwealth. How that applies you are no doubt about to tell us.
t43562:-
?
friartuck, the preceding posts of this thread have been about Unions and their armies, in particular the EU and the UK, and not about the Commonwealth. How that applies you are no doubt about to tell us.
t43562:-
If you want to include the empire a lot of countries left actually and some not so peacefully. But the result of all that blood and trouble is apparently good and should not change. But anything bigger (anything that English people are not in charge of?) would be bad.
No apology needed (but thanks for the offer ;-)
I think it is rather laughable that for the majority of its existence NATO has made a huge contribution to peace in Europe, and many European countries have sheltered under the umbrella of the USA and to a lesser degree the UK and France (outside of NATO for a long time) and have not put their short arms in their very deep pockets to share the financial burden, yet now 27 countries are going to form an army. Who is going to put up the money, because going on past performance they might just actually have enough shekels to buy a nice limousine or two for the top bods to drive around the EU inspecting the vanity project.