Hell, I’m not even sure why I as a Canadian would want deeper ties with the UK. It’s irritating now, but I see no value in any further union than the symbolic one we already have.
It’s a nice place to visit and all, but it’s a foreign country a long way away and we have enough on our hands keeping this country together.
In theory sure. In practice (in the UK) MEP elections are barely an after-thought for most people and often result in protest parties like UKIP and extremists like the Front National or the communists. Most people in the UK couldn’t even name their MEP. Not the fault of the system per-se but still a reality.
Being an MEP is seen as a cushy number with lavish expenses and no accountability, because how can you be held accountable when people don’t know who you are or what the hell you are doing?
Basically the population struggles with the level of democracy we have at a national level and adding more on top is not working.
Surely the eurosceptics should then be calling for less democracy - abolish the Parliament and have the Council the sole lawmaking power. But no, somehow they think they can square the circle and it’s the EU that’s unreasonable, not them.
You are quite accurately describing the troubles that parliamentary democracy is facing in many countries. Authoritarian regimes like to point to these troubles to illustrate how much better their own approach is. However, in your earlier post it seemed as if you considered the EU not sufficiently democratic. Now it almost looks as if you were saying the EU was adding to the already troublesome level of democracy you have at national level. I am sure I am missing your point here, but I suppose I need your help to see it.
Should I ask for cites, or should we just leap to the inevitable admission that you’ve got nothing but an opinion, won’t accept any sources that disagree with you, and generally are just here to proselytize?
You’re right I’ve contradicted myself, posting here is partly about getting my thoughts straight for myself :). I guess what I’m getting at is that you have theoretically democratic body that is not in fact representative or accountable setting regulations and law that override the laws made by national parliaments that are, generally, much better functioning democratic bodies. And this will only ever increase in the name of unification and the laws of bureaucracy.
I don’t think the EU is the worst thing ever and I can even see why it suits many countries on continental Europe. I do however think it expanded and developed too fast and the current state is not right for the UK.
The Nation Front, England First and Charter 18 are protest groups who will usually vote for the British Nationalist Party, they all come under the same heading Racist Scum.
My MEP Dian is very active and holds many public meetings with over 200 people attending the last one 2 weeks ago she was accompanied by another MEP Ray Finch the two of them spoke and answered questions for a couple of hours. It is up to the electorate to go to the meetings that are well advertised
I am not sure that the reason why many in the UK (and elsewhere) are opposed to the EU institutions is that they are not representative. For some they might be too representative - which means that given the fact that the EU has a population of about 508 million their own national population only amounts to a relatively small minority. They feel uneasy being part of a body where their own influence only amounts to that of a minority.
Isolationism has a big allure, I get that. It makes you the undisputed master of your own show. The price of course is that it is only a fairly small show.
We’ve debated the idea of an “Anglosphere” before, and it does make a lot of sense, economically. Not politically, but economically. GB-USA-Cannada-NZ-Oz Ireland, maybe.
The “Anglosphere” might form a strong market. Then again - one criticizm frequently leveled against the EU by British EU sceptics is how it allegedly is being dominated by Germany, it’s largest economy. The economy of the “Anglosphere” would be dominated by a single economy far more than that of the EU is.
We went through all this with Imperial (and later, Commonwealth) Preference. Although the adjustment once Britain turned to Europe may have been thought a bit abrupt, I doubt if the other putative partners in an economic Anglosphere would be remotely interested. It would be a step backward. Why else have successive US administrations made it clear they prefer to see the UK in the EU?