European Parliament Exposed

[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?

[InsaneApache]

You don't rate your fellow man much do you?

[Andres]

Husar, if you watched those two vids closely, then you would've noticed that these people already get a more than decent wage. If you would've watched both closely, you'd have seen the part about MEP's hiring some Bulgarian at 1.200 € a month to drive around, so that the MEP can cash 3.000 € a week for travel expenses, why he does the actual travelling with an Easy Jet flight. You would've seen the part about MEP's "hiring" their own wife and cashing 20.000 € for it. You would've seen that hiring your own wife will no longer be allowed after the next election (why not now immediately?) but that in some parties, politicians already agreed to simply hire each others' wife. Then you have the practice of cashing 300 € a day by simply signing a document in some obscure office and then leaving the building instead of actually being present (what the 300 € fee is intended for).

That is actively abusing the system. These people already get payed more than decent wages. How much more do you want to throw at them?

If these people only wish to do a good job if they get paid completely absurd amounts of money (there was this Maltese Commissioner accused of corruption, an amount of 60 million euro was mentioned; do we now need to pay all commissioners more than the lobbyist would do, say more than 60 million euro a year for each commissioner???), then perhaps, the logical conclusion should not be that we don't pay enough, but that they are greedy bastardly scumbags that we should get rid off asap.

I never said the EU as a project needs to be abandoned. I'm very much of favour of the EU and the idea of integration, close cooperation and a united Europe. But that doesn't mean I am not allowed to criticise and to demand the despicable practices to be stopped and those who have been guilty of it punished.

I don't pay taxes so some guy who already earns a very good salary, can go dining in a restaurant for free and get served exquise dishes and Châteauneuf-du-Pape or can get driven around in an expensive Mercedes to all kinds of frivoulous parties. That's not what I am paying taxes for.

[Husar]

You don't rate your fellow man much do you?

No, I've seen too many people who knew they're buying the worst tabloid and did it anyway, then discuss everything inside as though it's all 100% true.

The news these days are less politics and more celebrities because that is what people want, because it improves their ratings. If nothing were wrong with people, then news organisations would make the most money by performing quality reporting. But they don't. They make more money by talking about Beyonce's new boyfriend or what the Kardashians are up to because that is what people want and care about.

Andres, it doesn't matter who you put in office because every human is a greedy scumbag once the chance to be one arises. That's why capitalism works so well, because it uses the greedy scumbag in every human in an attempt to make everything work.