02 January 2006
Power
¤ ¤ ¤
Apparently Jose Manuel Barroso, president of the European Commission, is the most powerful man in Britain. A poll of listeners to the Radio 4 Today programme said so, so it must be true.
It is certainly the case that the Commission has the monopoly on proposing the legislation that makes up the single market, and that it is has the responsibility to promote the common European interest rather than the sectional interest of any member state, but even an arch-Europhile like me wouldn’t say that this is the biggest concentration of power in the country. Tony Blair came 7th in the poll and Gordon Brown 9th, which the latter must hate.
The BBC reports Roger Knapman, UKIP MEP, as saying "Of course it is the only chance you'll get to vote for him or for that matter against him." (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4574968.stm)
He’s not wrong, but that’s not the whole story. There is one person mentioned in that last paragraph who did get to vote for or against Mr Barroso, and that is Roger Knapman himself (according to Article 214(2) of the consolidated treaty, the European Parliament has to approve or reject the choice of president made by the European Council). Let’s go further and ask who got to vote for Tony Blair or Gordon Brown. The voters in Sedgefield and Kirkcaldy & Cowdenbeath, obviously, and the members of the House of Commons who support or oppose the government, but anyone else? Neither was a candidate in the constituency where I live.
The best way to sort this out, though, would be to give Mr Barroso, or rather his successor, a clearer mandate. What if each of the parties that contested the European elections in 2009 each nominated a candidate for president of the Commission? They already draw up Europe-wide manifestos so choosing a candidate should be no problem for them. The voters then could take into account the different candidates when deciding how to vote. We say goodbye forever to the complaint that the Commission president is unelected, and a good thing too.
It is certainly the case that the Commission has the monopoly on proposing the legislation that makes up the single market, and that it is has the responsibility to promote the common European interest rather than the sectional interest of any member state, but even an arch-Europhile like me wouldn’t say that this is the biggest concentration of power in the country. Tony Blair came 7th in the poll and Gordon Brown 9th, which the latter must hate.
The BBC reports Roger Knapman, UKIP MEP, as saying "Of course it is the only chance you'll get to vote for him or for that matter against him." (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4574968.stm)
He’s not wrong, but that’s not the whole story. There is one person mentioned in that last paragraph who did get to vote for or against Mr Barroso, and that is Roger Knapman himself (according to Article 214(2) of the consolidated treaty, the European Parliament has to approve or reject the choice of president made by the European Council). Let’s go further and ask who got to vote for Tony Blair or Gordon Brown. The voters in Sedgefield and Kirkcaldy & Cowdenbeath, obviously, and the members of the House of Commons who support or oppose the government, but anyone else? Neither was a candidate in the constituency where I live.
The best way to sort this out, though, would be to give Mr Barroso, or rather his successor, a clearer mandate. What if each of the parties that contested the European elections in 2009 each nominated a candidate for president of the Commission? They already draw up Europe-wide manifestos so choosing a candidate should be no problem for them. The voters then could take into account the different candidates when deciding how to vote. We say goodbye forever to the complaint that the Commission president is unelected, and a good thing too.
¤ ¤ ¤
Take another look at that BBC list. In second place is Rupert Murdoch and in 6th place, Terry Leahy, boss of Tesco. Nobody got to vote for them, not even Roger Knapman. How does UKIP propose to deal with this?
Posted by Richard Laming at 17:31
Yes, well we're all afraid of things that go bump in the night until we grow up and we learn that there aren't Monsters under the bed. Roger Knapman however seems to have little interest in the public receiving elementary factual material about the European Union. By all means have a policy of wanting to withdraw, but base it on facts and not fiction. The government conspires to keep the public ignorant allowing all sorts of misinformation and rumour to spread. How can anyone seriously believe that Mr Barroso runs Britain? Can they point to a single thing, one single aspect of British life that Mr Barroso has even influenced? Mass hysteria of this 'afraid of the dark' kind is what easily results in great evil. The sort that burned women as witches because they happened to have a few herbal remedies to help the seriously ill. Conspiracies - which is how the eurosceptics view the European Union - are almost universally wrong in their belief and not only wrong but their proponents refuse to let facts spoil a good witchhunt. Thus it is that whole races can disappear as a result of innuendo and malicious collective falsehood.
Why this rant? Because it is disgraceful that even a self-selected bunch of anoraks (who else responds to BBC quizzes) prompted by UKIP no doubt should hold that Barroso is more powerful than the Prime Minister. It shows just how tenancious is the hold of misinformation, how gullible a population can be, how easily misled. Who was it said that for evil to prosper it only requires the good to do nothing. Well it's about time that those who believe we should withdraw from the EU should argue their case from a position of fact and not by conjuring up fantasies and whispers about things that go - or even may go - bump in the night.
"How can anyone seriously believe that Mr Barroso runs Britain? Can they point to a single thing, one single aspect of British life that Mr Barroso has even influenced?"
Delighted to, old chap:
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2006/01/how-high.html
We may not have been able(other than in BBC poll)to vote for Murdoch or Leahy but we don't have to buy the Sun/Times etc or shop at Tesco.We are saddled with Barosso and the EU whether we like it or not.
For PETER SLB 'For evil to prosper you need unaudited accounts ,eleven years I believe'
Perhaps the anoraks you dismiss are in fact the GOOD standing up to tyranny.
Peter slb, please grow some grey cells.
"Can they point to a single thing, one single aspect of British life that Mr Barroso has even influenced?"
Hmm, that will be taxation (soon to expand to direct control, if the Austrian Presidency is to be believed), foreign policy, trade and imports (EU representatives at the WTO rather than UK reps), criminal law (on the back of the recent Court decision), ID cards and our social contract (ever seen what it says on your passport...?). The majority of laws introduced to Britain are now instigated at Commission level.
Whether you agree with what he does or not, please don't lie about whether Barroso does it.
Post a Comment
Back to the top