European Parliament Exposed

[Fragony]

Ladies&gentlemen, start your lmaorofl http://www.geenstijl.nl/archives/ima...dorf12801.html

[Andres]

Is that real?

If so, then I must say that his English is horrible.

I guess that throwing money isn't enough to ensure capable people enter parliament...

[Fragony]

Is that real?

If so, then I must say that his English is horrible.

I guess that throwing money isn't enough to ensure capable people enter parliament...

Not sure if it's real, but Geenstijl is usually very reliable. I don't know how they do it but they are always right on top of everything a whole lot faster. Their style isn't apreciated by everyone but they sure do a good job of bringing news a lot faster. A lot of Flemmish come there as well, if you have an incredibly juvenile sense of humour you will love it.

[Greyblades]

Not sure if it's real, but Geenstijl is usually very reliable. I don't know how they do it but they are always right on top of everything a whole lot faster. Their style isn't apreciated by everyone but they sure do a good job of bringing news a lot faster. A lot of Flemmish come there as well, if you have an incredibly juvenile sense of humour you will love it.

Kinda wish they did a english language version.

[Kralizec]

Which part of this is new or groundbreaking?

The video makes a lot of troulbe of stuff that is commonplace in national parliaments as well. Attendence for example: the Commons chamber of the UK has only enough sitting space for about a quarter of its members. When it was rebuilt after burning down in WW2, Churchill purpusefully kept the small size because the debates and votes would look more important if the room was full and crowded. This is one reason why the government and opposition parties of the UK use pairing agreements where an equal number of their own voting cattle are excused from attending.

[Andres]

Which part of this is new or groundbreaking?

The video makes a lot of troulbe of stuff that is commonplace in national parliaments as well. Attendence for example: the Commons chamber of the UK has only enough sitting space for about a quarter of its members. When it was rebuilt after burning down in WW2, Churchill purpusefully kept the small size because the debates and votes would look more important if the room was full and crowded. This is one reason why the government and opposition parties of the UK use pairing agreements where an equal number of their own voting cattle are excused from attending.

What fascinates me, is that we keep putting up with it. Why do we accept this? Why should we accept this?

If we all keep going "you can't do anything about it, you have to accept this", then yeah, nothing will ever change indeed.

And when all goes well and most people are employed, it's not dangerous, but when the continent is plunged into crisis, its' southern members into poverty, then this becomes dangerous.

Then you'll either get protests that get out of hand, or a regime in which such videos and the journalists who make them will disappear to be replaced with propaganda. And before you know it, you'll find yourself living in a dictatorship.

Look at that letter written by Mister Ransdorf. What he asks is for those journalists to be kept away out of the building. What's the next step?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Which part of this is new or groundbreaking?

The video makes a lot of troulbe of stuff that is commonplace in national parliaments as well. Attendence for example: the Commons chamber of the UK has only enough sitting space for about a quarter of its members. When it was rebuilt after burning down in WW2, Churchill purpusefully kept the small size because the debates and votes would look more important if the room was full and crowded. This is one reason why the government and opposition parties of the UK use pairing agreements where an equal number of their own voting cattle are excused from attending.

That's incorrect - the Commons chamber can comfortably seat about 600, the number of MP's is 650. After WWII the Commons chamber was reconstructed (including the Speaker's chair) as a sign of continuity. The reason for the space allocation in the 19th Century was to make a full sitting uncomfortable, not to discourage attendance but because the Commons are not supposed to be comfortable, that's what they have padded benches, and not desks with microphones as in the US or Australia.

I'd like you to explain these "pairing" arrangement, because I've never heard of them - if you're talking about the shape of the chamber, it's based on the Chapel parliament used to sit in. If you're talking about the arrangement of having a Loyal Opposition and a shadow cabinet, I don't feel I need to defend the practice.

[Kralizec]

Well, we're both off:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/p.../h-l/82332.stm

At such sessions, and during debates on controversial matters, the Commons Chamber can become very crowded as it is not large enough for the current number of MPs - there are only 427 green leather seats for 646 MPs.

Pairing agreements:
http://www.parliament.uk/site-inform...ssary/pairing/

Pairing is an arrangement where an MP of one party agrees with an MP of an opposing party not to vote in a particular division. This gives both MPs the opportunity not to attend. Pairing is an informal arrangement and is not recognised by the House of Commons' rules. Such arrangements have to be registered with the whips who check that the agreement is stuck to. Pairing is not allowed in divisions of great political importance but pairings can last for months or years.

EDIT:
I know that the Commons was not made smaller, but when it was to be rebuilt there was some support for a larger chamber because there were more MPs then there were when the old building was constructed. If I remember correctly one of my old teachers at university said that Churchil decided against it because the attendance was inevitably going to be less than 100% most of the time and he didn't like the idea of a half-empty chamber.

[Fisherking]

@Husar, like I said, you are not looking deeply enough.

Simple, who was helped by the light bulbs? Not the common guy, it was a special interest.

Who was helped by the change in copyrights? It did not help artist and authors but it did help the US recording industry.

Who was helped by the continuing education requirements for Engineers and Architects? Not the people, it drove up costs, not the engineers, it caused many to quit. It resulted in oversights and errors in construction that caused some buildings to collapse. It was a jobs program for the recently graduated.

Who was helped by not being able to sell undersized or oversized potatoes? Not the farmer! Not the consumer! They could not even be given to the poor or to live stock! But it was of mild benefit to wholesale packagers.

Do I need to keep going on?

[Husar]

@Husar, like I said, you are not looking deeply enough.

Simple, who was helped by the light bulbs? Not the common guy, it was a special interest.

How and which one?
CFLs and LEDs are cheaper than incandescents for the normal guy.
Additionally not wasting electric energy is good for everyone.

Who was helped by the change in copyrights? It did not help artist and authors but it did help the US recording industry.

How does abandoning the EU help any of this? Is national law any better?
The GEMA was said to ruin nightclubs with their recent changes to the cost calculation model.

Who was helped by the continuing education requirements for Engineers and Architects? Not the people, it drove up costs, not the engineers, it caused many to quit. It resulted in oversights and errors in construction that caused some buildings to collapse. It was a jobs program for the recently graduated.

No idea what exactly you mean, searching for "continuing education requirements for Engineers and Architects" only brings up articles about the USA/Alaska apparently. The recently graduated aren't big business however.

Who was helped by not being able to sell undersized or oversized potatoes? Not the farmer! Not the consumer! They could not even be given to the poor or to live stock! But it was of mild benefit to wholesale packagers.

Not very different from a national level, the whole giving food to the poor thing has been over for a while, companies in Germany do apparently have to pay sales tax if they do that (it counts as non-materialized but possible sales or so I was told) so they rather throw it away, it's what we did at the fuel station I worked at.

Do I need to keep going on?

Maybe by explaining who was helped by the restrictions against false advertising on food packages?
Who is helped by the improvements in personal data protection?
Who is helped by the universal human rights?

It's easy to find some banana laws that will supposedly bring about the end of the world while ignoring the fundamental benefits that the EU offers its citizens in many other areas.

[Fisherking]

You misunderstand, I am not with those who would scrap the EU.

I do recognize that it has had some positive effects but I do see that there are also serious problems in need of addressing and reforms.

They need more oversight and they need to be responsible to the people. If these things are not done then the only ones represented are the lobbyists and their own whims.

As to the lights, if something is such a wonderful deal everyone will gladly jump on board and it does not need to be legislated. Denying choices to the public is not the way to go.

Do you need a nanny or do you have the capacity to make your own decisions?

[Husar]

You misunderstand, I am not with those who would scrap the EU.

I do recognize that it has had some positive effects but I do see that there are also serious problems in need of addressing and reforms.

They need more oversight and they need to be responsible to the people. If these things are not done then the only ones represented are the lobbyists and their own whims.

I do not disagree that there is a lot of room for improvement, there always is.
My point was merely that people never recognize the positive things and keep on harping about the negatives until they come to the wrong conclusion that it's all negative and needs to be abandoned.
In the USA the bodies that are directly responsible to the people are still more subject to lobbying than the non-responsible ones in the EU. If being directly responsible to the people would end all lobbying that would be nice but it's obviously not nearly the case.

The whole thing about paying them more is stuff that belongs in every capitalism 101 book. The more money these people get from taxpayers, the more loyal they will be to taxpayers. If they get hardly any, they will look for other means to buy their luxuries and some lobbyists and industrials will gladly help in return for some legislative favors.

The best argument for a lobbyist is to show the politicians how the constituents hate them anyway unless they live like priests and how big business can protect them and care for their expenses. The lobbyists do not furiously shout and scream at politicians, they pretend to be their best friends, since politicians are humans, they also want friends, like everyone else...
There's actually a new book by a former lobbyist who seems to describe it just like that, I only heard about it on the radio though.

As to the lights, if something is such a wonderful deal everyone will gladly jump on board and it does not need to be legislated. Denying choices to the public is not the way to go.

Do you need a nanny or do you have the capacity to make your own decisions?

I don't, I switched to cheaper lightbulbs long before they were mandated and I have lately decided to replace all broken ones with LEDs instead of CFLs.
The whole nanny thing is necessary because when it does not exist, people will not gladly jump on board of the better train because they don't calculate or research. Instead they are influenced by misleading advertisement and superstitions.
This kind of rational profit-oriented behavior is mostly found in companies and not even all of them. The big ones however invest so much in advertisement because it does indeed pay off for them since they know it will influence people more than the truth does.
Why else does bottled tap water sell for 10-20 times the price?