Europe needs united army, EU parliament committee head urges after Brexit - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Killuah;50598990]Your point was that it's harder to even propose a change, it turns out that it's even EASIER to make a proposition for smaller countries that would be easily overruled in parliament. How is that twisting everything. The only one twisting around is you and your position when confronted with how the EU actually works.[/QUOTE] So you only need one person from the commission to initiate legislation? [QUOTE=Killuah;50598990]Ah yes suddenly when your example doesn't even work "It doesn't matter what the hypothetical law is" Sure dude. Sure.[/QUOTE] Though this entire time you didn't figure out we're talking about the principle? If I were to act like you I'd be namecalling you now.

[QUOTE=Silly Sil;50599042]So you only need one person from the commission to initiate legislation? Though this entire time you didn't figure out we're talking about the principle? If I were to act like you I'd be namecalling you now.[/QUOTE] Your scenario is dumb in principle since you're setting up a 180° degree turn and then complain about it's hard to to a 180° turn in representative democracy and especially dumb for the army example you yourself proposed first possibly since that point was just the subject of another thread since the comission doesn't even decide about defense legislation since "no legislative act is allowed in the field of the Common Foreign and Security Policy." I posted that. [editline]26th June 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Silly Sil;50599042]So you only need one person from the commission to initiate legislation? [/QUOTE] You can read about how the comission works here: [url]http://europa.eu/about-eu/institutions-bodies/european-commission/index_en.htm[/url]

[QUOTE=Killuah;50599073]Your scenario is dumb in principle since you're setting up a 180° degree turn and then complain about it's hard to to a 180° turn in representative democracy and especially dumb for the army example you yourself proposed first possibly since that point was just the subject of another thread since the comission doesn't even decide about defense legislation since "no legislative act is allowed in the field of the Common Foreign and Security Policy." I posted that.[/QUOTE] Oh yeah tell me what was I thinking. I've made an argument that you pretty much can't do anything when [B][U][I]a law[/I][/U][/B] you don't like passes in the EU. Once it's through you pretty much can't reverse it. You can't even elect someone who's going to [B]propose[/B] to reverse it. Do you agree with this or not? If not, then create your own scenario demonstrating how it's easy to propose new law in the EU that opposes the pro-integration trend. You're acting like I'm rigging the outcome of a hypothetical situation because you can't prove me wrong.

I just did and I'm not the only one who's seeing that your hypothetical situation doesn't make sense [QUOTE=Cloak Raider;50598835]no you propose a scenario in which the parliament and commission are replaced, and then replaced by an anti-army parliament and commission And then you go "Look!!! You have to replace both of them to get change!!!!" no, that was YOUR SCENARIO the fact that you're suggesting something that is a problem for every democracy really suggests you have literally no idea what your own argument is[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Killuah;50599073]You can read about how the comission works here: [url]http://europa.eu/about-eu/institutions-bodies/european-commission/index_en.htm[/url][/QUOTE] I've read it. It doesn't say anything that a single commissioner can initiate legislation on his own. So where did you take that from? [editline]26th June 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Killuah;50599134]I just did and I'm not the only one who's seeing that your hypothetical situation doesn't make sense[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Silly Sil;50599113]I've made an argument that you pretty much can't do anything when [B][U][I]a law[/I][/U][/B] you don't like passes in the EU. Once it's through you pretty much can't reverse it. You can't even elect someone who's going to [B]propose[/B] to reverse it. Do you agree with this or not? [/quote] Just answer the question.

Of course a single commissioner can't initiate legislation on his own. That would be a dictatorship. If you are actually talking about suggesting/proposing changes: (by the way you switched your scenario YOu switched your scenario from [quote] "Most member countries elected politicians to the parliament who oppose the army." [/quote] to proposals. "Commissioners support Vice-Presidents in submitting proposals to the College. " [editline]26th June 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Silly Sil;50599136] Just answer the question.[/QUOTE] You switch around your scenario when faced with the fact that your initial points [quote] 1.Most member countries elected politicians to the parliament who oppose the army. 2.90% of people a single member country voted for anti-army politicians.[/quote] are not working and now you are telling me to [I]just[/I] answer the question. Man you're a real piece of work

[QUOTE=Killuah;50599154]Of course a single commissioner can't initiate legislation on his own. That would be a dictatorship. If you are actually talking about suggesting/proposing changes: (by the way you switched your scenario YOu switched your scenario from to proposals. "Commissioners support Vice-Presidents in submitting proposals to the College. " You switch around your scenario when faced with the fact that your initial points are not working and now you are telling me to [I]just[/I] answer the question. Man you're a real piece of work[/QUOTE] I'm not switching anything. You're the one telling me what I actually think. Stop going after the army thing. How are you still not getting what the law is doesn't matter when I posted this twice [QUOTE=Silly Sil;50598509]Replace it with "a law that 90% of Polish people oppose" if it distracts you from the main point [/QUOTE] Why would I post that if I was talking about a certain law and not about the principle? And I'm not talking about suggesting things, you can suggest things to them by email. I'm talking about putting reform to vote. You are so tiresome to talk with. You twist and convolute what I'm saying in every post. I have one argument: that you pretty much can't do anything when a law you don't like passes in the EU. Once it's through you pretty much can't reverse it. You can't even elect someone who's going to propose to reverse it. (propose as in not just implement it, put it in front of the parliament for a vote) Either address my argument or just stop twisting my words and telling me what I actually meant.

Jesus, your just arguing about representative democracy in general now.

[QUOTE=Silly Sil;50599203]I'm not switching anything. You're the one telling me what I actually think. Stop going after the army thing. How are you still not getting what the law is doesn't matter when I posted this twice Why would I post that if I was talking about a certain law and not about the principle? [/quote] Because your initial statement was debunked quickly, so you switched out the army thing for "any law" and "Most member countries elected politicians to the parliament who oppose" to "elect someone who's going to propose to reverse it" Aka you switched. [editline]26th June 2016[/editline] [quote=Killuah]If you are actually talking about suggesting/[B]proposing[/B] changes:[/quote] [QUOTE=Silly Sil;50599203] And I'm not talking about suggesting things, you can suggest things to them by email. [/QUOTE] [quote]You can't even elect someone who's going to [B]propose[/B] to reverse it.[/quote] [editline]26th June 2016[/editline] You actually can't suggest by email, you need a 1 million signature petition btw

[QUOTE=Silly Sil;50599203]I'm not switching anything. You're the one telling me what I actually think. Stop going after the army thing. [...] You twist and convolute what I'm saying in every post. [/QUOTE] Your proposed situation fundamentally changed half way through the discussion. They are not different wordings of each other.

[QUOTE=Silly Sil;50599203] I have one argument: that you pretty much can't do anything when a law you don't like passes in the EU. Once it's through you pretty much can't reverse it. You can't even elect someone who's going to propose to reverse it. (propose as in not just implement it, put it in front of the parliament for a vote) Either address my argument or just stop twisting my words and telling me what I actually meant.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Silly Sil;50594593] [B]Well that's democracy for you. ... The majority rules over the minority. Don't like it? Change your system to tyranny or something.[/B][/QUOTE] Or you could vote in the next EU elections

[QUOTE=Superkilll307;50599249]Jesus, your just arguing about representative democracy in general now.[/QUOTE] Representative democracy? So you can vote for the people who can initiate legislation in the EU? [QUOTE=Killuah;50599312]Because your initial statement was debunked quickly, so you switched out the army thing for "any law" and "Most member countries elected politicians to the parliament who oppose" to "elect someone who's going to propose to reverse it" Aka you switched.[/QUOTE] Why did I post this then [QUOTE=Silly Sil;50598509]Replace it with "a law that 90% of Polish people oppose" if it distracts you from the main point.[/QUOTE] ? [QUOTE=Killuah;50599312]You actually can't suggest by email, you need a 1 million signature petition btw[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Silly Sil;50599203]And I'm not talking about suggesting things, I'm talking about putting reform to vote. You are so tiresome to talk with. [/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Aircraft;50599340]Your proposed situation fundamentally changed half way through the discussion. They are not different wordings of each other.[/QUOTE] How did it fundamentally change? You think I was only talking about repealing the army once it passed? Then why did I talk about army, euro and an unknown law that polish people oppose. This was always about the principle. The actual law was irrelevant. [QUOTE=Killuah;50599353]Or you could vote in the next EU elections[/QUOTE] So 90% of your country voted for a guy who opposes "law X", you got you MP into the parliament, he can't put up a reform to a vote. Yep you just totally proven how realistic it is to make the EU take a step back.

[QUOTE=Silly Sil;50599394]Why did I post this then ? [/QUOTE] You are right you are not switching, you are replacing [editline]26th June 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Silly Sil;50599394]Representative democracy? So you can vote for the people who can initiate legislation in the EU? Why did I post this then ? How did it fundamentally change? You think I was only talking about repealing the army once it passed? Then why did I talk about army, euro and an unknown law that polish people oppose. This was always about the principle. The actual law was irrelevant. So 90% of your country voted for a guy who opposes "law X", you got you MP into the parliament, he can't put up a reform to a vote. Yep you just totally proven how realistic it is to make the EU take a step back.[/QUOTE] You can through "Commissioners support Vice-Presidents in submitting proposals to the College. "" but you didn't reply to that [editline]26th June 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Silly Sil;50599394]You think I was only talking about repealing the army once it passed? Then why did I talk about army, euro and an unknown law that polish people oppose. This was always about the principle. The actual law was irrelevant. [/QUOTE] How silly of us to think you are talking aobut the army in a thread about the army

No need to create a new army. EU already got a huge united army spread out amongst it consisting of thousands of ISIS warriors. :v:

[QUOTE=Killuah;50599403]You are right you are not switching, you are replacing[/QUOTE] You're just not going to address the point of my argument, are you? You're just gonna go on and on how you know what I was thinking and that it wasn't a matter of misunderstanding and me using a wrong example for the hypothetical? I wanted to talk about the principle. And I used a bad example for it. And now I guess you just won't let it go so the argument is over. You're just not going to address my actual argument. Thanks for the lesson. I'll use "X" example next time.

[QUOTE=Silly Sil;50599453]You're just not going to address the point of my argument, are you? You're just gonna go on and on how you know what I was thinking and that it wasn't a matter of misunderstanding and me using a wrong example for the hypothetical? I wanted to talk about the principle. And I used a bad example for it. And now I guess you just won't let it go so the argument is over. You're just not going to address my actual argument. Thanks for the lesson. I'll use "X" example next time.[/QUOTE] I did you just didn't bother to reply to "Commissioners support Vice-Presidents in submitting proposals to the College. " twice now and now are trying to play it off like you were about pinciple all along when called out on the fallacies in your posts. Just like you did suddenly talk about OTHER videos too before [url]https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1524552&p=50598424&highlight=#post50598424[/url] when called out on how what you're saying is not in the video [editline]26th June 2016[/editline] Oh and by the way [QUOTE=Killuah;50598862]It's actually even easier to propose changes for smaller countries with less weight since the comission has one member per state, not proportionally to the inhabitants of countries. Fucking lol[/QUOTE] "Commissioners support Vice-Presidents in submitting proposals to the College. "

[QUOTE=Killuah;50599470]I did you just didn't bother to reply to "Commissioners support Vice-Presidents in submitting proposals to the College. " twice now and now are trying to play it off like you were about pinciple all along when called out on the fallacies in your posts.[/QUOTE] [quote=your source]Collective decision making Decisions are taken based on collective responsibility. [U]All Commissioners are equal in the decision-making process and equally accountable for these decisions. They do not have any individual decision-making powers[/U], except when authorized in certain situations. The Vice-Presidents act on behalf of the President and coordinate work in their area of responsibility, together with several Commissioners. Priority projects are defined to help ensure that the College works together in a close and flexible manner. Commissioners support Vice-Presidents in submitting proposals to the College. [U]In general, decisions are made by consensus, but votes can also take place.[/U] In this case, decisions are taken by simple majority, where every Commissioner has one vote. The relevant Directorate-General (headed by a Director-General, answerable to the relevant Commissioner) then takes up the subject. This usually done in the form of draft legislative proposals. These are then resubmitted to the Commissioners for adoption at their weekly meeting, after which they become official, and are sent to the Council and the Parliament for the next stage in the EU legislative process.[/quote] So what this means is that a commissioner can present his proposal to the COMMISSION. Which has to agree to it before it goes to the parliament to be voted on. You don't vote on the commission. Your elected politicians cannot put reform up for the parliament to vote. This is my problem with this setup. [QUOTE=Killuah;50599470]Just like you did suddenly talk about OTHER videos too in this thread [URL]https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1524552&p=50598424&highlight=#post50598424[/URL] when called out on how what you're saying is not in the vide[/QUOTE] And I admitted I was wrong for saying he addressed it in that vid and apologized for that. I doubt you'd understand.

[QUOTE=Silly Sil;50599394] So 90% of your country voted for a guy who opposes "law X", you got you MP into the parliament, he can't put up a reform to a vote. Yep you just totally proven how realistic it is to make the EU take a step back.[/QUOTE] I'd say it's perfectly fine that just one MP in a parliament can't stop a law, since he'll be elected based on his/his party's campaigning platform. If only one guy gets elected to parliament that opposes a law, it either means few people cared or few people thought it was a bad idea. Also, I assume that most parliaments let MPs hand in motions. This means he could totally put up either a motion to overturn laws he or his voters really don't like, or a motion of no confidence etc. etc. Doesn't mean that they'll get passed or even put to a vote, but at the very least you'll get some debating time for your issues if they're not completely unserious. I feel you're trying to argue against representative democracy itself here, but if you think it's specifically an European thing, please explain how.

[QUOTE=DVH;50599788]I'd say it's perfectly fine that just one MP in a parliament can't stop a law, since he'll be elected based on his/his party's campaigning platform. If only one guy gets elected to parliament that opposes a law, it either means few people cared or few people thought it was a bad idea. Also, I assume that most parliaments let MPs hand in motions. This means he could totally put up either a motion to overturn laws he or his voters really don't like, or a motion of no confidence etc. etc. Doesn't mean that they'll get passed or even put to a vote, but at the very least you'll get some debating time for your issues if they're not completely unserious. I feel you're trying to argue against representative democracy itself here, but if you think it's specifically an European thing, please explain how.[/QUOTE] It's not about one MP stopping a law. It's about not being able to come up with your own reforms. Only the european commission, which you don't vote for can initiate legislation. Poland has 51 MEPs now. Say they are all against law X and majority of Polish people voted for them because of that. They still can't put "repel law X" for vote. You do not vote for the people who initiate legislation and those who you do vote on can't do it. This is not representative democracy. This is why I have a problem with it. If members of the parliament could come up with their own legislation and put it to vote we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Why don't we all just join NATO instead?

[QUOTE=DeEz;50600415]Why don't we all just join NATO instead?[/QUOTE]The US is sick of footing most of the bill, i'd imagine. Wouldn't be that surprised if prospective new members just got told to fuck off unless they already spend the minimum 2% GDP on the military.

[QUOTE=Silly Sil;50600057]It's not about one MP stopping a law. It's about not being able to come up with your own reforms. Only the european commission, which you don't vote for can initiate legislation. Poland has 51 MEPs now. Say they are all against law X and majority of Polish people voted for them because of that. They still can't put "repel law X" for vote. You do not vote for the people who initiate legislation and those who you do vote on can't do it. This is not representative democracy. This is why I have a problem with it. If members of the parliament could come up with their own legislation and put it to vote we wouldn't be having this conversation.[/QUOTE] That makes it a lot clearer, thanks.