UKIP Tool Insults EU President and Beligium.

[Siege]

Let's get something straight here: Van Rompuy is the President of the European Council, the EU institution that defines the general political direction of the Union. He is not the head of the Council of the EU (otherwise known as the Council of Ministers). The CEU is the principal decision-making institution within the EU, not the EC. Basically what Van Rompuy and his colleagues (heads of state or foreign ministers from the member states) do is hammer out a line they think would be good for the EU to follow in the future. It does not have any formal powers; it's just people talking and - hopefully - being listened to by others because they're well-respected and sensible people.

The Council of the European Union, or the Concilium, meanwhile, is one of the two legislative bodies of the EU (the other being the European Parliament). Membership of the CEU is composed of national ministers and its exact composition changes depending on what subject is under discussion. Its presidency rotates over the member states, with each state holding the presidency for six months.

So let's not get all hysterical about 'power grabs' on the part of Van Rompuy; he leads a institution with no formal power. The only thing he can do is talk to people and hopefully convince them to go home and convince the people there to pursue a certain course. This is also one of two good reasons why the President of the EC shouldn't be directly elected: you can't make any promises to an electorate if you don't have any actual power to pass any measures. The other reason, of course, is that most Europeans can't be arsed to figure out how the fuck the EU works and what it does in the first place, and ignorant jackasses who reason by gut instinct don't tend to make good political decisions.

[Vendetta]

Wow, I cannot believe I protest voted for theses showers of bastards when one of their representatives arrogantly and childishly insults a whole country as well as other EU politicians:

You voted for a europhobe party and are wondering why they hate foreigners?

It's basically the stated intent of UKIP to undermine the EU and Britain's place in it.

[Kane Starkiller]

Basically what Van Rompuy and his colleagues (heads of state or foreign ministers from the member states) do is hammer out a line they think would be good for the EU to follow in the future. It does not have any formal powers; it's just people talking and - hopefully - being listened to by others because they're well-respected and sensible people.

So basically their job is to advise the people who do make decisions? Why not simply call them advisers then and compose them of experts in politics, economy and industry instead of heads of state? You have the Council of the European Union which is composed of ministers, which themselves are accountable to their national governments, and then there is European Council which is composed heads of those governments which then "advise" the ministers. What's the point? It almost looks as if the institutions of EU are created and named to intentionally confuse the public and the "president" is just a placeholder position that will gradually expand its power.

[Thanas]

Anybody who believes Van Rompuy or the organization he stands for are a threat to European democracy is am ignoramus who does not know how the EU works. Unless Parliament and the head of states and the European Courts (in retrospect) all agree, he can do nothing. He is basically a communications hub between the institutions.

[K. A. Pital]

Let's get something straight here: Van Rompuy is the President of the European Council, the EU institution that defines the general political direction of the Union. He is not the head of the Council of the EU (otherwise known as the Council of Ministers). The CEU is the principal decision-making institution within the EU, not the EC. Basically what Van Rompuy and his colleagues (heads of state or foreign ministers from the member states) do is hammer out a line they think would be good for the EU to follow in the future. It does not have any formal powers; it's just people talking and - hopefully - being listened to by others because they're well-respected and sensible people.

The Council of the European Union, or the Concilium, meanwhile, is one of the two legislative bodies of the EU (the other being the European Parliament). Membership of the CEU is composed of national ministers and its exact composition changes depending on what subject is under discussion. Its presidency rotates over the member states, with each state holding the presidency for six months.

So let's not get all hysterical about 'power grabs' on the part of Van Rompuy; he leads a institution with no formal power. The only thing he can do is talk to people and hopefully convince them to go home and convince the people there to pursue a certain course. This is also one of two good reasons why the President of the EC shouldn't be directly elected: you can't make any promises to an electorate if you don't have any actual power to pass any measures. The other reason, of course, is that most Europeans can't be arsed to figure out how the fuck the EU works and what it does in the first place, and ignorant jackasses who reason by gut instinct don't tend to make good political decisions.

I though as much. What a bunch of hysterics about essentially nothing. If the UKIP wanted to score idiot points, they sure did though - all idiots are now theirs.

Dem' democratic British BRUTISH RUUGH RUUGH standing up to da European SISSIES!

[Siege]

So basically their job is to advise the people who do make decisions?

That more or less sums it up, yes. They're a think-tank composed of heads of state and Van Rompuy who sit around thinking about what would be good for the Union and what its best future course of action would be.

Why not simply call them advisers then and compose them of experts in politics, economy and industry instead of heads of state?

If I have to venture a guess it's because different countries tend to have different opinions about such matters; because the heads of state who make up the EC presumably are themselves advised by experts in politics, economy and industry; and because heads of state are vastly more likely to be listened to when they get home after an EC meeting than any random delegated expert. Plus, heads of state (irregardless of whether they are directly or indirectly elected) have a responsibility to their respective electorates which appointed advisers would not have.

You have the Council of the European Union which is composed of ministers, which themselves are accountable to their national governments, and then there is European Council which is composed heads of those governments which then "advise" the ministers. What's the point?

Whilst I agree that the CEU and EC could conceivably have been named in more distinctive fashions, I imagine their names are simply the remnant of earlier stages of development of the European Economic Community / European Community / European Union. Besides, the CEU is mostly called the Council of Ministers anyway.

The CEU and the European Parliament are the two legislative bodies, respectively indirectly and directly elected; the European Commission is the executive branch made up of 27 commissioners, one from each member state, but all of whom are expected to "think European", as the phrase goes. The EC meanwhile is an advisory body made up of head honchos who contemplate long-term development of the Union.

All of these institutions have their own specific purpose, which really isn't that difficult to understand. Speaking generally for a moment, the fact that so few people seem to do makes me suspect that they just don't put the vanishingly small effort into understanding the EU in the first place. A lot of folks hear the term "President" and immediately jump to the conclusion that Van Rompuy is supposed to be a non-elected Obama or something. That isn't helpful. The EU isn't like the American (or any other) government; nor is it supposed to be. Accept that it's different, and move on from there.

It almost looks as if the institutions of EU are created and named to intentionally confuse the public and the "president" is just a placeholder position that will gradually expand its power.

Heh. To make matters even more convoluted, there's also an international organisation of 47 European countries, called the "Council of Europe", which exists entirely separate of the EU. Addressing your concern for a moment though -- What power? Seriously, what power do you think the President of the EC could possibly amass when the EC exists explicitly as an advisory? The President is a generally well-liked and respected guy (hence why Van Rompuy got the job and Tony Blair didn't) whose job it is to attempt to form some degree of consensus amongst heads of state about the future of the EU, in the hope that the heads of state, upon their return home, will be able to convince their governments to agree to a certain long-term view, thus easing the forming of an international consensus amongst the member states. So what formal power is he supposed to accrue, again?

[Witch]

So basically their job is to advise the people who do make decisions?

That more or less sums it up, yes. They're a think-tank composed of heads of state and Van Rompuy who sit around thinking about what would be good for the Union and what its best future course of action would be.

It's rather difficult to consider any meeting of 27 heads of state as a 'think tank'. As the respective governments of the member-states of the European Union, they have significant influence on MEPs of their own parties, but more importantly, on the Council of Ministers. Those ministers, after all, serve under those heads of state/government. It gives Van Rompuy has a great deal of influence, although not formal power. And, believe me, Van Rompuy is a master in using his influence and minor powers to take control of a situation. When he was president of the Belgian parliament, he had received a formal request to have a debate on a certain matter. As this debate wasn't politically expedient for him, and he knew he had received it, he didn't visit his office for a number of days to avoid having to accept it. Likewise, he also locked parliament one time to avoid a debate he didn't want. This is why I understand Farage calling him 'dangerous' - I don't doubt that Van Rompuy has benevolent intentions (I applauded his appointment), but don't underestimate his ability to do very much with very little power.

It almost looks as if the institutions of EU are created and named to intentionally confuse the public and the "president" is just a placeholder position that will gradually expand its power.

Heh. To make matters even more convoluted, there's also an international organisation of 47 European countries, called the "Council of Europe", which exists entirely separate of the EU.

Don't forget the fact that the Council of Europe also has the same flag (and other symbols). This does very little in distinguishing the two institutions - although the membership of Russia in the CoE should clarify something about how little power it has.

The problem with the Eurpean Union institutions is, as they say, nobody knows who to call when they want to speak to Europe. If Obama wants to discuss sanctions against Iran, who does he call? Sarkozy, Merkel and Brown? Van Rompuy? Ashton? Barroso? All these people have some claim of 'speaking for Europe'... but there is little indication about whom should be approached. Lisbon was supposed to streamline the European Institutions, but to some extent, it seems to have complicated them.

[Siege]

It's rather difficult to consider any meeting of 27 heads of state as a 'think tank'. As the respective governments of the member-states of the European Union, they have significant influence on MEPs of their own parties, but more importantly, on the Council of Ministers.

I used the term 'think tank' mostly to illustrate that they have no formal power. Of course you're entirely right in that they wield significant influence nonetheless. And Van Rompuy is certainly an expert politician -- I imagine that's another reason he got the job. But then I'm not saying the EC is harmless: far from it. Hell, their job is basically to expedite the formation of international consensus amongst member states about non-trivial matters such as whether the EU should federalize more or not. The EC's job however is not to draft pan-European laws or approve them; that falls to other institutions.

The problem with the Eurpean Union institutions is, as they say, nobody knows who to call when they want to speak to Europe. If Obama wants to discuss sanctions against Iran, who does he call? Sarkozy, Merkel and Brown? Van Rompuy? Ashton? Barroso? All these people have some claim of 'speaking for Europe'... but there is little indication about whom should be approached. Lisbon was supposed to streamline the European Institutions, but to some extent, it seems to have complicated them.

I imagine that in due time they're supposed to go to the High Representative for Foreign Affairs. The High Representative, as part of the executive branch (the European Commission) is according to Lisbon to propose a course of action on foreign affairs to the CEU, who will in turn consult the European Parliament and the Commission. If both agree with whatever is being proposed, the Council will then act on it. Of course, until the European External Action Service is up and running this is sort of theoretical, and I guess we'll just have to see how this joint foreign affairs policy thing works out in the end.

[Lord Pounder]

Wow, I cannot believe I protest voted for theses showers of bastards when one of their representatives arrogantly and childishly insults a whole country as well as other EU politicians:

You voted for a europhobe party and are wondering why they hate foreigners?

It's basically the stated intent of UKIP to undermine the EU and Britain's place in it.

More accurately, from what I've read of the UKIP, he voted for the party that caters to people too posh to actually vote for the British Nazi Party, jeez this is why people should pass some kind of mental agility test before they are allowed in that voting booth.

[Samuel]

From what I can see the structure of the EU is the same as how the US senate was origionally set up. Why are people getting so upset about such a structure?

[Vendetta]

Wow, I cannot believe I protest voted for theses showers of bastards when one of their representatives arrogantly and childishly insults a whole country as well as other EU politicians:

You voted for a europhobe party and are wondering why they hate foreigners?

It's basically the stated intent of UKIP to undermine the EU and Britain's place in it.

More accurately, from what I've read of the UKIP, he voted for the party that caters to people too posh to actually vote for the British Nazi Party, jeez this is why people should pass some kind of mental agility test before they are allowed in that voting booth.

Well yes, the principle difference being that UKIP hate Europe first and brown people second, and the BNP hate brown people first and Europe second.

[Hillary]

Wow, I cannot believe I protest voted for theses showers of bastards when one of their representatives arrogantly and childishly insults a whole country as well as other EU politicians:

You voted for a europhobe party and are wondering why they hate foreigners?

It's basically the stated intent of UKIP to undermine the EU and Britain's place in it.

Having read a lot of his posts, I'm rather surprised that BO is actually old enough to vote. But honestly - as you pretty much say, wtf?

As for the OP, it's a lot of stuff and nonsense. This is the head of a minority party tubthumping ahead of a general election in a couple of months' time. They have never won a seat in the HoC and only win representation in the European Parliament because we have such a sad turnout in the UK and because morons like BO protest vote for them.

Nigel Farage is like a walking Daily Mail front page.

[Big Orange]

I gave one unwise vote to UKIP, but I've also mostly voted (and will vote) for the Liberal Democrats, and I've voted some time back, so since then between looking up this dirt digging essay and later on with Nigel Farage's recent trolling I've dropped the UKIPers like a hot potato, consigning them to the scrapheap alongside Labour, Conservatives, and of course the BNP. I admitted my error from the start and moved on from there.

I'm a EU skeptic, but not anti-European as such, with Britain having French designed nuclear plants built and a French company operating half of Dover, which I have no problem with. The reason I impulsively protest voted UKIP was down to Poland being misused by Britain as a European Mexico when it became a EU member, with very real social and economic damage inflicted on both countries (with Poland now contracting outside the EU likely due to the workforce drain), but I'm more convinced that most of Britain's woes are down to the decisions made in the City of London and Westminster rather than in Brussels, with politicians leeching expenses and businessmen outsourcing jobs.

[Colonel Olrik]

I'm a EU skeptic, but not anti-European as such, with Britain having French designed nuclear plants built and a French company operating half of Dover, which I have no problem with.

Funny, that's one thing you should have a problem with, for reasons that don't have anything to do with being anti-EU. Your country has, through neglect and lack of will, wasted his once mighty nuclear industry and his now dependent of the French nuclear engineers. I recently had the chance of spending some days with one of the last British nuclear scientists at a team building event. He switched to the missile industry in the end of the 80's after he became convinced the British nuclear era was finished.

The reason I impulsively protest voted UKIP was down to Poland being misused by Britain as a European Mexico when it became a EU member, with very real social and economic damage inflicted on both countries (with Poland now contracting outside the EU likely due to the workforce drain)

Perfect, vote for the wannabe British first nazis because you wanted to protect the rights of the Polish emigrants. I'm sure they'd thank you personally.

[Big Orange]

Funny, that's one thing you should have a problem with, for reasons that don't have anything to do with being anti-EU. Your country has, through neglect and lack of will, wasted his once mighty nuclear industry and his now dependent of the French nuclear engineers. I recently had the chance of spending some days with one of the last British nuclear scientists at a team building event. He switched to the missile industry in the end of the 80's after he became convinced the British nuclear era was finished.

That was mainly down to Britain thinking it could short-sightedly get by with oil and gas power, so Britain's nuclear power withered while France's expanded. Like I said most of Britain's problems are down to its political and business elite.

Perfect, vote for the wannabe British first nazis because you wanted to protect the rights of the Polish emigrants. I'm sure they'd thank you personally.

I fucked up, why should anybody thank me?

I underestimated the nuttiness and malice of UKIP when I cast my vote in, but since it was a EU election they could not really put their policies into action, however Germany just did it. Immigration is a necessary part of a modern industrial nation, but in the UK under Labour, immigration had been unusually overdone in the lead up to the economic collapse (which helped the people paying lower wages), but recently immigration has declined (that reflects the fewer jobs). I don't believe in "Britain first", since I myself and millions of others in my generation could very easily be economic migrants to other parts of the world. I don't believe in cultural insularity and extreme economic protectionism, but I can see the dangers of overpopulation and strained infrastructure (but again that ultimately goes down to the people in charge rather than the ordinary immigrants and natives). Chest-beating nationalist populists like the BNP and UKIP (the former going after innocent immigrants and the latter after the EU) are clearly not the answer.

Anyway here is the clip of Nigel Farage's embarrassing tirade:

[Bernkastel]

Hmmm, I hope this does not have too much of an effect on our image abroad. This is really embarrasing. However, as I think about this, I'm actually surprised that something like this hasn't happened sooner.

[Thanas]

^Trust me, Britain's image in the EU cannot get much worse than it already is. At the very worst, this has just reinforced the image that already exists.

That said, welcome to the board.

[Bernkastel]

Well, I'm not that surprised by that. Unfortunately, this incident will have given UKIP more publicity that I would personally prefer them not to have. Anyway, I think I'll enjoy being a member of this board.

[Hillary]

^Trust me, Britain's image in the EU cannot get much worse than it already is. At the very worst, this has just reinforced the image that already exists.

Rather sadly there are more votes to be won by blaming the EU for all our ills than by extolling the benefits being a part of the EU brings.

Both left (well Labour) and right are Eurosceptics and the popular press blame the EU for either too much legislation (Eurocrats red tape/health and safety rules) or too little (human rights nonsense won't let us hang poor people, I mean muggers) depending on which is convenient at the time.