MEPs Want to Rule the World
MEPs are by my reckoning, generally jumped up little pricks who take themselves too seriously. This story seems to confirm my outrageous prejudice.
The European Parliament has with an overwhelming majority voted in favour of a global moratorium on the death penalty
Earth to Euro Parliament, you are not actually in charge of the globe.
The fact that the end of the death penalty was a gross violation of the rights of innocent people, in favour of murdering slags is another issue entirely.
10 comments:
It's so obvious why they want to rule the world Serf: the more "citizens" (surely they mean "comrades"?) they control, the more money they get to misappropriate and spend corruptly.
What do you think of the story on the front page of today's FT re GB's tussle with the French over the rebate and the VAT fraud?
What was striking was the way MEPs called for a universal moratorium on the death penalty to be applied "immediately and unconditionally". Whatever one's view on the death penalty, one thing is for sure: the EU is now determined to impose its ideological obsessions far beyond its own borders. State sovereignty is so obviously an undesirable concept to them. The way the MEPs phrased their demand is unlikely to win any support from the leading practioners of the death penalty: Saudi Arabia, Iran, China and the US.
Power corrupts ...
When you think you have absolute power, there's just something wrong with you.
"The fact that the end of the death penalty was a gross violation of the rights of innocent people, in favour of murdering slags is another issue entirely."
Very true but several innocent people have been executed. I'd have hated to have been up on a capital charge in the days when the West Mids detectives were practising their creative writing skills.
Anonymous - you're right
Honest question - how many pieces of EU legislation have been passed which the UK government voted against in the Council of Ministers? We constantly hear about the "road to serfdom" but I've yet to see someone make a post on this topic. You can find this information very easily on the Council's website back to 1999.
Why not create a list of all the "EU imposed laws" we're currently living under? It would be nice to get a handle on how big the problem actually is instead of debating rhetoric. Are you up for it Mr Serf?
...just to give you a start, I counted up the Council votes on adopted legislation in 2006 up to September (last updated online). The numbers were:
Total adopted - 86
UK voted in favour - 84
UK voted against - 0
UK abstained - 2
Is this the extent of "Euro Serfdom"? Two pieces of EU legislation that we abstained from voting on were passed? Oh the tyranny!
John
You are missing the point entirely.
Every time a piece of Euro Legislation is passed, it removes the right of future governments to take a different view on the matter.
The government of today may well agree with the legislation, but by passing it, it is effectively binding all future governments.
On a further note, EU legislation is not subject to the same media spotlight, nor do the opposition get a chance to oppose.
On the point about parliament's reduced role in the process - that the opposition don't get an opportunity to oppose - I completely agree with you. This is the argument that should be made against the EU - that national executives are given too much power in comparison to parliaments - but it seems the only argument we ever hear is the (clearly factually incorrect) point about foreigners "imposing" legislation on the country. They cannot impose legislation on the UK if the UK government agrees to almost all of the legislation that's adopted. Particularly given that many Commission proposals are rejected by the UK in the Council.
On the second point - that future governments are constrained by the actions of present day governments - clearly this is the case. However this is the explicit point of the structure of the European institutions. It's the same logic we use in creating an independent central bank - that it's impossible for a government to commit to long term policies when a) they're subject to short term electoral pressures and b) the rights to govern the country pass to different governments regularly. This is why you create policies such as the Common Fisheries policy, because short term electoral pressures would lead to the fish stocks vanishing (for instance).
Overall the main point that should be made however is that these two arguments (parliamentary balance and constraining future governments) are completely reasonable adult objections to the European Union which should be the subject of an informed debate. Unfortunately we never get to address these issues because the EU debate is dominated by eurosceptic spook stories about the Commission imposing legislation on us against our will.
Post a Comment