Benefits of being in/out of the EU?
Discussion
Hooli said:
So being in the EU allowed us to argue about rules we wouldn't have to worry about if we weren't in the EU.
Of course we'd have to worry about them. That was my point. We still have to sell into the EU and abide by their rules. Being in the EU means we have a say in how they affect our companies.vonuber said:
Funkycoldribena said:
Whats leftover is still way more than what they earn at home,why do you think a lot live several to a house?
Relatively it probably isn't though. And they do it for the same reason British people live several to a house, to save money.
oh ffs!) there was some photos bandied about with a dozen living in one rented 2 bed property! Just like 'we' do, eh?
Why the photos? Apparently one of them had gone into a photo shop to get copies and the member of staff got copies too! They (EEs) were all hugging each other and holding up a stuck together paper sign, translated it read 'Come, come, come, Britain give us everything!'
Needless to say, a big row was about to erupt and they got moved. Probably doing the same again elsewhere.
Guybrush said:
Jinx said:
Bluebarge said:
The more I learn about the EU (and read on the Europa website) the less I like the entire concept - EU paid lobbyists seem to dictate the directives and not the will of the EU people in any shape of form - if the people of Europe vote against something the EU change its name and do it anyway - how can any one want to be part of that corrupt monstrosity?
Exactly; it's easy to find out how much the EU costs us every day...over £50 million...but isn't it odd that it's not at all easy to see the benefits of being in the EU. If the benefits of being in the EU were clear, we'd have plain and simple facts and figures in front of us. Other countries do very well without being in the EU and so can we. In any case, most of the EU countries are economic basket cases.As to the benefits - read the thread - access to the single market, a level playing field to trade in throughout Europe, favourable trade terms with non-EU countries using the EU's bargaining power etc, etc; most of Britains' top companies favour EU membership and it's not hard to see why. Read more here
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/18/torie...
I will admit I havent read all of the thread so it may have been covered but we were having this discussion at work the other day and the point raised was if we left the EU and therefore lost the preferential trading, would that no kickstart the producing industries in this country as there would not be the benifit in exporting things in?
Jinx said:
And your comment is an expression of your own prejudice - "negotiated on behalf of and voted for by all member states" ergo not in favour of the UK by definition.
CAP does favour France - and look at the UK industry since we entered into the EEC?
Europe's economy also depends on the UK - we are a very strong trading partner - none of which needs to be threatened by an exit from the EU political camp. The EU political side costs a fortune - as a net contributor the UK would be better off outside of this undemocratic organisation. There is no political mechanism for removing EU directives even if they are shown to cause more harm than good - are they really that prefect?
The more I learn about the EU (and read on the Europa website) the less I like the entire concept - EU paid lobbyists seem to dictate the directives and not the will of the EU people in any shape of form - if the people of Europe vote against something the EU change its name and do it anyway - how can any one want to be part of that corrupt monstrosity?
Mate, your post is a whole pile of "wrong".CAP does favour France - and look at the UK industry since we entered into the EEC?
Europe's economy also depends on the UK - we are a very strong trading partner - none of which needs to be threatened by an exit from the EU political camp. The EU political side costs a fortune - as a net contributor the UK would be better off outside of this undemocratic organisation. There is no political mechanism for removing EU directives even if they are shown to cause more harm than good - are they really that prefect?
The more I learn about the EU (and read on the Europa website) the less I like the entire concept - EU paid lobbyists seem to dictate the directives and not the will of the EU people in any shape of form - if the people of Europe vote against something the EU change its name and do it anyway - how can any one want to be part of that corrupt monstrosity?
Of course EU treaties are not simply to favour the UK, that is a daft expectation, like expecting a UK treaty to favour only Cornwall over the rest of the UK. They do, however, have UK input and he Uk is broadly happy with them.
I know the CAP favours France - I've already said that, but it is tolerated because other deals were negotiated in our favour (the UK rebate, for example). That's how politics works - you get this if we get that.
The EU "political side" is nor particularly expensive compared with Westminster and the devolved assemblies of the UK. It is there to make the EU democratic so you can hardly moan that the EU is undemocratic and then complain that it has a "political" side which costs money.
The EU certainly is democratic for the reasons outlined by another poster above which two other posters at least failed to understand because his post contained a few long words. Should we add you to that list?
EU Directives are voted on by national govts (and MEPs) and can be replaced by new Directives, as many have been in the past.
Lobbyists exist in Westminster as does coruption. EU Directives are not "dictated by lobbyists". Lobbyists make representations, as they do on UK legislation, but the shape of the legislation is dictated by elected politicians, here and in the EU.
speedy_thrills said:
What do you consider undemocratic about the EU?
Broadly speaking Commissioners are appointed by the elected governments of individual nation to serve the EC (representative democracy). Then they are assigned portfolios by the Commission President (who is elected by MEPs via representative democracy).
Thn the Commission must pass muster in the European parliament as a safeguard to ensure he has acted fairly in assigning portfolios and electorates generally agree with the majority of choices for commissioners. If not then the President can re-shuffle portfolios or request new Commissioners be appointed by elected governments (though, in practise, he has limited choices to work with the people he's been stuck with by elected national governments).
In other words the EC itself is answerable to two elected bodies:
- MEPs elected directly to the European Parliament.
- National governments who appoint Commissioners to the EC.
The EC must then do the day-to-day tasks of drafting bills, setting budgets, conducting trade talks etc.
Then as an additional check bills are passed to the Council of Ministers (which again is appointed by national governments) and European parliament (who can amend, reject or pass). Legislation and budgets must pass both to become law.
Flow diagram that shows who is appointed by elected governments, who is elected directly and how both are involved in the standard process.
If a country is unhappy with commissioner it's up to the electorate to elect another national government that will appoint someone more representative, if electorates were unhappy with MEPs then it's up to electorates to elect new MEPs.
So the EU is a system that combines direct and representative democracy (something we should be very comfortable with in the UK). British people complaining about how undemocratic the EU is should take a look at the UKs electoral and governmental systems. The UK still has archaic hangovers like hereditary peerage, monarchy and runs a FPTP electoral system
.
There is no democracy in the EU, our MEP's are in a permanent state of a minority , as are any commisiuoners. This garbage above, speaks as if the UK is a county within a country , the EU. The EU is not a country but that is what it wants to be. In effect the European "parliament" is a governmant looking for a country.Broadly speaking Commissioners are appointed by the elected governments of individual nation to serve the EC (representative democracy). Then they are assigned portfolios by the Commission President (who is elected by MEPs via representative democracy).
Thn the Commission must pass muster in the European parliament as a safeguard to ensure he has acted fairly in assigning portfolios and electorates generally agree with the majority of choices for commissioners. If not then the President can re-shuffle portfolios or request new Commissioners be appointed by elected governments (though, in practise, he has limited choices to work with the people he's been stuck with by elected national governments).
In other words the EC itself is answerable to two elected bodies:
- MEPs elected directly to the European Parliament.
- National governments who appoint Commissioners to the EC.
The EC must then do the day-to-day tasks of drafting bills, setting budgets, conducting trade talks etc.
Then as an additional check bills are passed to the Council of Ministers (which again is appointed by national governments) and European parliament (who can amend, reject or pass). Legislation and budgets must pass both to become law.
Flow diagram that shows who is appointed by elected governments, who is elected directly and how both are involved in the standard process.
If a country is unhappy with commissioner it's up to the electorate to elect another national government that will appoint someone more representative, if electorates were unhappy with MEPs then it's up to electorates to elect new MEPs.
So the EU is a system that combines direct and representative democracy (something we should be very comfortable with in the UK). British people complaining about how undemocratic the EU is should take a look at the UKs electoral and governmental systems. The UK still has archaic hangovers like hereditary peerage, monarchy and runs a FPTP electoral system
.I do not care what the Dutch (as example) wish to do , I have no interestest in telling them what to do, I do not however expect them to boss me around. The fact remains though, that in effect is what happens , people the average UK voter have never heard of ,let alone voted for, are doing just that, interfering in their lives . Who the f
k in the UK voted for Junker? Never seen him on any ballot paper I've filled in. To quote a resume on the work by Iain Mansfield (Iain is the Director of Trade and Investment at the UK’s embassy in the Philippines and has previously worked for the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills. )
"His winning entry calls for the UK to join the European Free Trade Association, as well as for the introduction of a ‘Great Repeal Bill’ to bring about a comprehensive review and, where appropriate, repeal, of EU regulations. These measures would prevent economic shocks in trade and would reduce the bureaucratic burden on British business, unshackling the wider economy.
It concludes that a Brexit must ultimately be a political rather than an economic decision, yet calculates that if it occurred, the UK economy would experience a £1.3bn increase in GDP. Significantly fewer regulations, coupled with greater trade with emerging economies, could provide an overwhelmingly positive future outlook for an independent Britain.
The submission, A Blueprint for Britain: Openness not Isolation, argues that the single highest economic priority in the event of a ‘no’ vote would be to ensure the maintenance of zero tariffs on trade between the UK and the EU in all areas apart from agriculture. It also strongly makes the case for the importance of an exit from the Single Market. Staying in would mean retaining almost all of the most onerous and controversial aspects of EU membership."
Note specifically the £1.3bn Uk economy gain.
http://www.iea.org.uk/in-the-media/press-release/i...
Edited by Cheese Mechanic on Wednesday 22 April 17:26
Cheese Mechanic said:
There is no democracy in the EU, our MEP's are in a permanent state of a minority , as are any commisiuoners. This garbage above, speaks as if the UK is a county within a country , the EU. The EU is not a country but that is what it wants to be. In effect the European "parliament" is a governmant looking for a country.
I do not care what the Dutch (as example) wish to do , I have no interestest in telling them what to do, I do not however expect them to boss me around. The fact remains though, that in effect is what happens , people the average UK voter have never heard of ,let alone voted for, are doing just that, interfering in their lives . Who the fk in the UK voted for Junker? Never seen him on any ballot paper I've filled in.
To quote a resume on the work by Iain Mansfield (Iain is the Director of Trade and Investment at the UK’s embassy in the Philippines and has previously worked for the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills. )
"His winning entry calls for the UK to join the European Free Trade Association, as well as for the introduction of a ‘Great Repeal Bill’ to bring about a comprehensive review and, where appropriate, repeal, of EU regulations. These measures would prevent economic shocks in trade and would reduce the bureaucratic burden on British business, unshackling the wider economy.
It concludes that a Brexit must ultimately be a political rather than an economic decision, yet calculates that if it occurred, the UK economy would experience a £1.3bn increase in GDP. Significantly fewer regulations, coupled with greater trade with emerging economies, could provide an overwhelmingly positive future outlook for an independent Britain.
The submission, A Blueprint for Britain: Openness not Isolation, argues that the single highest economic priority in the event of a ‘no’ vote would be to ensure the maintenance of zero tariffs on trade between the UK and the EU in all areas apart from agriculture. It also strongly makes the case for the importance of an exit from the Single Market. Staying in would mean retaining almost all of the most onerous and controversial aspects of EU membership."
Note specifically the £1.3bn Uk economy gain.
Well said.I do not care what the Dutch (as example) wish to do , I have no interestest in telling them what to do, I do not however expect them to boss me around. The fact remains though, that in effect is what happens , people the average UK voter have never heard of ,let alone voted for, are doing just that, interfering in their lives . Who the f
k in the UK voted for Junker? Never seen him on any ballot paper I've filled in. To quote a resume on the work by Iain Mansfield (Iain is the Director of Trade and Investment at the UK’s embassy in the Philippines and has previously worked for the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills. )
"His winning entry calls for the UK to join the European Free Trade Association, as well as for the introduction of a ‘Great Repeal Bill’ to bring about a comprehensive review and, where appropriate, repeal, of EU regulations. These measures would prevent economic shocks in trade and would reduce the bureaucratic burden on British business, unshackling the wider economy.
It concludes that a Brexit must ultimately be a political rather than an economic decision, yet calculates that if it occurred, the UK economy would experience a £1.3bn increase in GDP. Significantly fewer regulations, coupled with greater trade with emerging economies, could provide an overwhelmingly positive future outlook for an independent Britain.
The submission, A Blueprint for Britain: Openness not Isolation, argues that the single highest economic priority in the event of a ‘no’ vote would be to ensure the maintenance of zero tariffs on trade between the UK and the EU in all areas apart from agriculture. It also strongly makes the case for the importance of an exit from the Single Market. Staying in would mean retaining almost all of the most onerous and controversial aspects of EU membership."
Note specifically the £1.3bn Uk economy gain.
Bluebarge said:
It will be in the EU's interests to ensure that the UK does not become a "regulation-lite" aircraft carrier off the coast of Europe which is able to suck trade and jobs away from Europe by failing to comply with the same regulatory structure that EU businesses have to contend with. The EU negotiators will also be influenced by democratic pressures from their electorates, who will not be keen to see a "sweetheart" deal for the UK, given the amount of disruption a Brexit would cause, and from EEA countries who will insist that the UK does not get a more favourable deal than them. So, in summary, a Brexit will probably lead to access to the Single Market being granted only on the basis that UK trades on EEA terms, which means that 90% of the EU regulation of UK business will remain.
You may think that is "propaganda", I think it is pragmatism. Your approach appears to be based on wishful thinking and an assumption that people with divergent interests from you will do exactly as you want. That is naive.
surely anyone taking a pragmatic view would assume the needs and wants of the business world in general would be met by both sides ? You may think that is "propaganda", I think it is pragmatism. Your approach appears to be based on wishful thinking and an assumption that people with divergent interests from you will do exactly as you want. That is naive.
speedy_thrills said:
Funkycoldribena said:
If someone from the pro-eu can tell me where democracy comes into it I'm all ears.
What do you consider undemocratic about the EU?Broadly speaking Commissioners are appointed by the elected governments of individual nation to serve the EC (representative democracy). Then they are assigned portfolios by the Commission President (who is elected by MEPs via representative democracy).
Then the Commission must pass muster in the European parliament as a safeguard to ensure he has acted fairly in assigning portfolios and electorates generally agree with the majority of choices for commissioners. If not then the President can re-shuffle portfolios or request new Commissioners be appointed by elected governments (though, in practise, he has limited choices to work with the people he's been stuck with by elected national governments).
In other words the EC itself is answerable to two elected bodies:
- MEPs elected directly to the European Parliament.
- National governments who appoint Commissioners to the EC.
The EC must then do the day-to-day tasks of drafting bills, setting budgets, conducting trade talks etc.
Then as an additional check bills are passed to the Council of Ministers (which again is appointed by national governments) and European parliament (who can amend, reject or pass). Legislation and budgets must pass both to become law.
Flow diagram that shows who is appointed by elected governments, who is elected directly and how both are involved in the standard process.
If a country is unhappy with commissioner it's up to the electorate to elect another national government that will appoint someone more representative, if electorates were unhappy with MEPs then it's up to electorates to elect new MEPs.
So the EU is a system that combines direct and representative democracy (something we should be very comfortable with in the UK). British people complaining about how undemocratic the EU is should take a look at the UKs electoral and governmental systems. The UK still has archaic hangovers like hereditary peerage, monarchy and runs a FPTP electoral system
.The EU is akin to the Civil Service in the UK running the country, making policy decisions, and appointing a Prime Minister who is very Pro-Civil service. The result being the the Policy makers, not the MP/MEP's, becoming increasingly more powerful and influential. The EU is a political entity, with the ultimate aim of being regarded as a Nation.
A senior figure from one of the world’s most powerful think tanks will today warn that “Britain’s future as a great nation must lie outside of the European Union”.
https://www.theparliamentmagazine.eu/articles/part...
https://www.theparliamentmagazine.eu/articles/part...
vonuber said:
Funkycoldribena said:
Why do you think the E.Europeans work so hard?Because they are on 4-5 times what they could earn at home.
But their costs are UK costs, so it doesn't matter.Not that I criticise them for that, there are a couple of Polish mechanics I know who work s
tloads of hours and live in what most would consider crap conditions, because for them it is a short-term means to an end, that end being making a decent whack to take home and buy themselves a house. So the cost basis can be different.Neither want to stay here for good, they're not exactly here for the weather. I admire their work ethic, they're the only indie mechanic in my town where I can drop/collect my car at 9pm!
BGARK said:
No we wont, please stop spouting this drivel, its driving me nuts how little people understand trade!
I think you are the one who has difficulty understanding. If you are currently trading freely with another country, it is because there is a treaty in place between the EU and that other country that permits that. Absent such treaty, whatever other country you trade into would be free to erect traiff barriers or outright import bans if it chose to. The EU allows free access to the Single Market to EEA countries without tariff barriers only because those countries have signed up to 90% of EU Regulations (so that the EEA companies are competing on a level playing field with EU companies) and pay large sums of money to the EU for the privilege. That's the point.Cheese Mechanic said:
There is no democracy in the EU, our MEP's are in a permanent state of a minority , as are any commisiuoners. This garbage above, speaks as if the UK is a county within a country , the EU. The EU is not a country but that is what it wants to be. In effect the European "parliament" is a governmant looking for a country.
I do not care what the Dutch (as example) wish to do , I have no interestest in telling them what to do, I do not however expect them to boss me around. The fact remains though, that in effect is what happens , people the average UK voter have never heard of ,let alone voted for, are doing just that, interfering in their lives . Who the fk in the UK voted for Junker? Never seen him on any ballot paper I've filled in.
To quote a resume on the work by Iain Mansfield (Iain is the Director of Trade and Investment at the UK’s embassy in the Philippines and has previously worked for the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills. )
"His winning entry calls for the UK to join the European Free Trade Association, as well as for the introduction of a ‘Great Repeal Bill’ to bring about a comprehensive review and, where appropriate, repeal, of EU regulations. These measures would prevent economic shocks in trade and would reduce the bureaucratic burden on British business, unshackling the wider economy.
It concludes that a Brexit must ultimately be a political rather than an economic decision, yet calculates that if it occurred, the UK economy would experience a £1.3bn increase in GDP. Significantly fewer regulations, coupled with greater trade with emerging economies, could provide an overwhelmingly positive future outlook for an independent Britain.
The submission, A Blueprint for Britain: Openness not Isolation, argues that the single highest economic priority in the event of a ‘no’ vote would be to ensure the maintenance of zero tariffs on trade between the UK and the EU in all areas apart from agriculture. It also strongly makes the case for the importance of an exit from the Single Market. Staying in would mean retaining almost all of the most onerous and controversial aspects of EU membership."
Note specifically the £1.3bn Uk economy gain.
http://www.iea.org.uk/in-the-media/press-release/i...
Your "democracy" point is balls, as outlined countless times on this thread. The EU could be made more directly democratic but you don't want that because that would imply political union and that is anathema to you, so stop raising it as an issue because you don't want it anyway - you just want "out".I do not care what the Dutch (as example) wish to do , I have no interestest in telling them what to do, I do not however expect them to boss me around. The fact remains though, that in effect is what happens , people the average UK voter have never heard of ,let alone voted for, are doing just that, interfering in their lives . Who the f
k in the UK voted for Junker? Never seen him on any ballot paper I've filled in. To quote a resume on the work by Iain Mansfield (Iain is the Director of Trade and Investment at the UK’s embassy in the Philippines and has previously worked for the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills. )
"His winning entry calls for the UK to join the European Free Trade Association, as well as for the introduction of a ‘Great Repeal Bill’ to bring about a comprehensive review and, where appropriate, repeal, of EU regulations. These measures would prevent economic shocks in trade and would reduce the bureaucratic burden on British business, unshackling the wider economy.
It concludes that a Brexit must ultimately be a political rather than an economic decision, yet calculates that if it occurred, the UK economy would experience a £1.3bn increase in GDP. Significantly fewer regulations, coupled with greater trade with emerging economies, could provide an overwhelmingly positive future outlook for an independent Britain.
The submission, A Blueprint for Britain: Openness not Isolation, argues that the single highest economic priority in the event of a ‘no’ vote would be to ensure the maintenance of zero tariffs on trade between the UK and the EU in all areas apart from agriculture. It also strongly makes the case for the importance of an exit from the Single Market. Staying in would mean retaining almost all of the most onerous and controversial aspects of EU membership."
Note specifically the £1.3bn Uk economy gain.
http://www.iea.org.uk/in-the-media/press-release/i...
Edited by Cheese Mechanic on Wednesday 22 April 17:26
The report you want is by a junior civil servant in a not very important embassy. I know folk in the FCO and, if you've been there 30 years and only reached the rank this fella has, you are no high flyer, so I've no idea why you are touting him as a guru.
The proposals he has come up with are the usual fantasy wish list of how you would like things to be and bear no relation to (i) the political realities of how hard it would be to negotiate favourable terms for the UK without signing up to the EEA, (ii) the strength of our bargaining position with various countries (iii) the current political realities (USA is looking westward and wants a strong Europe which includes Uk staying in the EU) or (iv) the amount of disruption that would be experienced by the UK economy as a result of UK and overseas disinvestment whilst these inevitably lengthy negotiations would be going on.
Bluebarge said:
Mate, your post is a whole pile of "wrong".
Of course EU treaties are not simply to favour the UK, that is a daft expectation, like expecting a UK treaty to favour only Cornwall over the rest of the UK. They do, however, have UK input and he Uk is broadly happy with them.
I know the CAP favours France - I've already said that, but it is tolerated because other deals were negotiated in our favour (the UK rebate, for example). That's how politics works - you get this if we get that.
The EU "political side" is nor particularly expensive compared with Westminster and the devolved assemblies of the UK. It is there to make the EU democratic so you can hardly moan that the EU is undemocratic and then complain that it has a "political" side which costs money.
The EU certainly is democratic for the reasons outlined by another poster above which two other posters at least failed to understand because his post contained a few long words. Should we add you to that list?
EU Directives are voted on by national govts (and MEPs) and can be replaced by new Directives, as many have been in the past.
Lobbyists exist in Westminster as does coruption. EU Directives are not "dictated by lobbyists". Lobbyists make representations, as they do on UK legislation, but the shape of the legislation is dictated by elected politicians, here and in the EU.
Democratic? Of course EU treaties are not simply to favour the UK, that is a daft expectation, like expecting a UK treaty to favour only Cornwall over the rest of the UK. They do, however, have UK input and he Uk is broadly happy with them.
I know the CAP favours France - I've already said that, but it is tolerated because other deals were negotiated in our favour (the UK rebate, for example). That's how politics works - you get this if we get that.
The EU "political side" is nor particularly expensive compared with Westminster and the devolved assemblies of the UK. It is there to make the EU democratic so you can hardly moan that the EU is undemocratic and then complain that it has a "political" side which costs money.
The EU certainly is democratic for the reasons outlined by another poster above which two other posters at least failed to understand because his post contained a few long words. Should we add you to that list?
EU Directives are voted on by national govts (and MEPs) and can be replaced by new Directives, as many have been in the past.
Lobbyists exist in Westminster as does coruption. EU Directives are not "dictated by lobbyists". Lobbyists make representations, as they do on UK legislation, but the shape of the legislation is dictated by elected politicians, here and in the EU.
How many votes rejected the EU constitution and as there was no plan B by the EU it was renamed and implemented anyway? There is no mandate from the EU electorate and therefore any attempt to declare the EU as democratic is a lie.Bluebarge said:
BGARK said:
No we wont, please stop spouting this drivel, its driving me nuts how little people understand trade!
I think you are the one who has difficulty understanding. If you are currently trading freely with another country, it is because there is a treaty in place between the EU and that other country that permits that. Absent such treaty, whatever other country you trade into would be free to erect traiff barriers or outright import bans if it chose to. The EU allows free access to the Single Market to EEA countries without tariff barriers only because those countries have signed up to 90% of EU Regulations (so that the EEA companies are competing on a level playing field with EU companies) and pay large sums of money to the EU for the privilege. That's the point.NO ONE I trade with wants to be governed by the EU.
NOTHING from the EU helps small business (99% of the UK), it only helps those at the very top level (1%) of business and government, paid for by the MAJORITY OF US.
Do you understand?
BGARK said:
I TRADE with overseas people for a living, its part of what I do, inside and outside of the EU!
NO ONE I trade with wants to be governed by the EU.
NOTHING from the EU helps small business (99% of the UK), it only helps those at the very top level (1%) of business and government, paid for by the MAJORITY OF US.
Do you understand?
You mean that people outside the EU still buy from the UK wow thats just amazing because to listen to the doom and gloom merchants we will evaporate in to thin air should we ever leave the EU.NO ONE I trade with wants to be governed by the EU.
NOTHING from the EU helps small business (99% of the UK), it only helps those at the very top level (1%) of business and government, paid for by the MAJORITY OF US.
Do you understand?
I have a feeling that we would do very well once the shackles are removed
JensenA said:
speedy_thrills said:
Funkycoldribena said:
If someone from the pro-eu can tell me where democracy comes into it I'm all ears.
What do you consider undemocratic about the EU?Broadly speaking Commissioners are appointed by the elected governments of individual nation to serve the EC (representative democracy). Then they are assigned portfolios by the Commission President (who is elected by MEPs via representative democracy).
Then the Commission must pass muster in the European parliament as a safeguard to ensure he has acted fairly in assigning portfolios and electorates generally agree with the majority of choices for commissioners. If not then the President can re-shuffle portfolios or request new Commissioners be appointed by elected governments (though, in practise, he has limited choices to work with the people he's been stuck with by elected national governments).
In other words the EC itself is answerable to two elected bodies:
- MEPs elected directly to the European Parliament.
- National governments who appoint Commissioners to the EC.
The EC must then do the day-to-day tasks of drafting bills, setting budgets, conducting trade talks etc.
Then as an additional check bills are passed to the Council of Ministers (which again is appointed by national governments) and European parliament (who can amend, reject or pass). Legislation and budgets must pass both to become law.
Flow diagram that shows who is appointed by elected governments, who is elected directly and how both are involved in the standard process.
If a country is unhappy with commissioner it's up to the electorate to elect another national government that will appoint someone more representative, if electorates were unhappy with MEPs then it's up to electorates to elect new MEPs.
So the EU is a system that combines direct and representative democracy (something we should be very comfortable with in the UK). British people complaining about how undemocratic the EU is should take a look at the UKs electoral and governmental systems. The UK still has archaic hangovers like hereditary peerage, monarchy and runs a FPTP electoral system
.The EU is akin to the Civil Service in the UK running the country, making policy decisions, and appointing a Prime Minister who is very Pro-Civil service. The result being the the Policy makers, not the MP/MEP's, becoming increasingly more powerful and influential. The EU is a political entity, with the ultimate aim of being regarded as a Nation.
It is alarming that a number of posters [who may or who may not be posting from a position of ignorance
], cannot understand just what a travesty of democracy the EU "parliament" actually is...Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff