People from Europe sure are stupid

Hatunen wrote:

On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 18:57:44 +0200, nitram
wrote:
[]
I do and I have answered it. Your spelling checker is on the blink.

I admit to a certain denseness, but I don't see how the power to
sack the commissioners addresses the question of whether the
parliament can originate legislation.

He answered already, in the affirmative. Do an internet search on "eu
legislation" and you get a taster for some of it.

--
David Horne- www.davidhorne.net
usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk

On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 23:02:01 +0200, nitram
wrote:

On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 11:44:13 -0700, Hatunen wrote:

On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 18:57:44 +0200, nitram
wrote:

On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 10:58:36 -0700, Hatunen wrote:

On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 18:29:04 +0200, nitram
wrote:

On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 10:21:58 -0700, Hatunen wrote:

On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 10:26:12 +0200, nitram
wrote:

On Tue, 31 May 2005 16:11:52 -0700, Hatunen wrote:

Does the Eruoepan parliament simply approve things, or does it
have the poer to originate them?

Yes. It has the power to sack all the commissioners and has done at
least once.

Yes, what?

the latter.

Out of curiosity, do yo actually know the answer to MY question?

I do and I have answered it. Your spelling checker is on the blink.

I admit to a certain denseness, but I don't see how the power to
sack the commissioners addresses the question of whether the
parliament can originate legislation.

Lets try again.
You asked "Does the Eruoepan parliament simply approve things, or does
it have the poer to originate them?

I answered Yes. ....
and then you aksed "Yes, what?"
and I answered "the latter".

Ah. I was confused, and apparently confused others, because,
expecting everyone to read my mind, I was referring to
legislation.

************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

On Wed, 1 Jun 2005 22:35:54 +0100,
(chancellor of the duchy of
besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco) wrote:

Hatunen wrote:

On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 18:57:44 +0200, nitram
wrote:
[]
I do and I have answered it. Your spelling checker is on the blink.

I admit to a certain denseness, but I don't see how the power to
sack the commissioners addresses the question of whether the
parliament can originate legislation.

He answered already, in the affirmative. Do an internet search on "eu
legislation" and you get a taster for some of it.

That Google search gets me so much that doesn't answer my
question that I gave up; most of the hits are regarding specific
legislation or archives of legislation.

************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

On Wed, 1 Jun 2005 21:28:00 +0100,
(chancellor of the duchy of
besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco) wrote:

ALAN HARRISON wrote:

"Hatunen" wrote in message
...

I believe he means the commisioners are appointed by elected
officials, thus the appointment of commissioners is linked to
democratic processes, a tenuous link at best.

I would agree that the link is tenuous. However, the appointment of persons
to similar posts within individual nation states isn't unknown - Lord Adonis
in the UK: now, apparently, Dominique de Villepin in France,

There's a massive difference between being an education minister and
prime minister though!

and the whole
cabinet in the USA, with Condi, Rumsfeld and all the rest untouched by human
vote.

In the US case though, they do have to be approved by the Senate, who
are certainly elected.

The constitutional mandate is that the president appoints them
with the "advice and consent" of the Senate, although until 1913
the Senators were not necessarily elected by the voters; the
constitution originaly said: "The Senate of the United States
shall be composed of two Senators from each state, chosen by the
legislature thereof ..."

************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

Hatunen wrote:

On Wed, 1 Jun 2005 21:28:00 +0100,
(chancellor of the duchy of
besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco) wrote:
[]
In the US case though, they do have to be approved by the Senate, who
are certainly elected.

The constitutional mandate is that the president appoints them
with the "advice and consent" of the Senate,

Though that can I suppose mean that they block a confirmation- a
relatively rare occurence, I think.

--
David Horne- www.davidhorne.net
usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk

"Miss L. Toe" wrote in message
eenews.net...

"nitram" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 10:24:10 -0700, Hatunen wrote:

On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 10:29:39 +0200, nitram
wrote:

On Tue, 31 May 2005 22:12:01 +0100, Padraig Breathnach
wrote:

"John of Aix" wrote:

With the EU parliament, where else. Nothing, but nothing can be
passed
without the approval of ther EU parliament of which all the members
are
democratically elected.

It's not that simple. There are three centres of power: the
Commission, the Parliament, the Council of Ministers. All are linked
to democratic processes.

The commissioners are political appointees and are not elected.

I believe he means the commisioners are appointed by elected
officials, thus the appointment of commissioners is linked to
democratic processes, a tenuous link at best.

The commissioners are appointed by their respective member state and
approved by the MEPs. I do not consider this democratic. They are
sometimes failures from the national political system. Take Lord
Kinnock, for example.

Kinnock isn't too bad - but look at Meddlesome


Kinnock is a total turncoat.
He was often anti-Europe when in UK politics.
He's now on the gravy train and in the Lords!!
Admittedly Mandelson is even worse.

Surreyman
Hundreds of trivia quizzes on travel, geography and much else on
http://www.sploofus.com/?ref=surreyman

Hatunen wrote:

On Thu, 2 Jun 2005 08:13:58 +0100,
(chancellor of the duchy of
besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco) wrote:

Hatunen wrote:

On Wed, 1 Jun 2005 21:28:00 +0100,
(chancellor of the duchy of
besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco) wrote:
[]
In the US case though, they do have to be approved by the Senate, who
are certainly elected.

The constitutional mandate is that the president appoints them
with the "advice and consent" of the Senate,

Though that can I suppose mean that they block a confirmation- a
relatively rare occurence, I think.

Not rare at all; it happens with some frequency.

[]

When was the last time a cabinet appointee was blocked? (I'm thinking
maybe one of Clinton's Surgeon General appointees, if that counts.)

In general, though, the Senate rarely blocks a president's
choices for his cabinet on the theory that the cabinet should be
of the president's choice.

Indeed.

However, at this time the Senate has
delayed confirmation of Bush's appointment of Bolton as
ambassador to the UN on the grounds that he is totally wrong for
the job, and eventual confimation does not seem to be assured.

Is that considered part of the cabinet then?

--
David Horne- www.davidhorne.net
usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk

On Thu, 2 Jun 2005 08:13:58 +0100,
(chancellor of the duchy of
besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco) wrote:

Hatunen wrote:

On Wed, 1 Jun 2005 21:28:00 +0100,
(chancellor of the duchy of
besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco) wrote:
[]
In the US case though, they do have to be approved by the Senate, who
are certainly elected.

The constitutional mandate is that the president appoints them
with the "advice and consent" of the Senate,

Though that can I suppose mean that they block a confirmation- a
relatively rare occurence, I think.

Not rare at all; it happens with some frequency. The very recent
crunch about the approval of some nominees for federal judgeships
is an example. And during the Clinton administration the
Republican-controlled Senate blocked a number of Clinton's
judicial nominees (a fact rather conveniently forgoten by the
Republicans in their recent complaints about Democratic threats
to block Bush's judicial appointments).

In general, though, the Senate rarely blocks a president's
choices for his cabinet on the theory that the cabinet should be
of the president's choice. However, at this time the Senate has
delayed confirmation of Bush's appointment of Bolton as
ambassador to the UN on the grounds that he is totally wrong for
the job, and eventual confimation does not seem to be assured.

************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

On Thu, 2 Jun 2005 17:23:11 +0100,
(chancellor of the duchy of
besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco) wrote:

Hatunen wrote:

On Thu, 2 Jun 2005 08:13:58 +0100,
(chancellor of the duchy of
besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco) wrote:

Hatunen wrote:

On Wed, 1 Jun 2005 21:28:00 +0100,
(chancellor of the duchy of
besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco) wrote:
[]
In the US case though, they do have to be approved by the Senate, who
are certainly elected.

The constitutional mandate is that the president appoints them
with the "advice and consent" of the Senate,

Though that can I suppose mean that they block a confirmation- a
relatively rare occurence, I think.

Not rare at all; it happens with some frequency.

[]

When was the last time a cabinet appointee was blocked? (I'm thinking
maybe one of Clinton's Surgeon General appointees, if that counts.)

The Surgeon General is not a cabinet member.

In general, it will become known that a cabinet nominee will not
be approved by the Senate well ahead of time and the president
will usually withdraw the nomination before the Senate gets a
chance to vote.

In general, though, the Senate rarely blocks a president's
choices for his cabinet on the theory that the cabinet should be
of the president's choice.

Indeed.

However, at this time the Senate has
delayed confirmation of Bush's appointment of Bolton as
ambassador to the UN on the grounds that he is totally wrong for
the job, and eventual confimation does not seem to be assured.

Is that considered part of the cabinet then?

Not really. Forgive me the ambiguity.


************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *