Fact is, European politicians don’t just fail to expose the issues at hand and to inform properly the populations about the EU, they actively mislead their electorate about it.
By “some”, do you mean “one”? Because according to Eurostat there is only Germany in the EU that receives more immigrants than the UK. Further, the overwhelming majority of immigrants to the UK remain in England. England is also one of the most densely populated countries in Europe — it has a population density higher than the Netherlands and Belgium for instance, and is second only to Malta for population density in the EU, making any perceived negative effects from immigration all the more acute.
clairobscur, you’re highlighted precisely what irks me. There’s a huge amount of downright misinformation about the EU, and whether it’s good or bad to remain in it is clouded by fear driven by these myths.
UK Immigrant destination of choice
And Calais seems unwitting hoststo a helluva lot of people trying to get into the UK illegally.
I’m guessing they’re not trying to get into the UK for its weather and cuisine.
But yes, Europe as a whole is facing an unprecedented illegal immigration challenge that isn’t likely to go away.
The point is - it’s a legitimate political issue that the established parties are not addressing and this leaves the issue to be exploited by very unpleasant people.
removed - re-edited, see below
On which ballot paper did the names of the EU leaders appear?
Perhaps then the whole thing is too complicated to be ideal then. We keep hearing of how misinformed we in the UK are but if it’s not just the UK who are misinformed then this suggests a fundamental problem with the entire structure. I dont know if such problems can be overcome, but I think the problem is more than simple “misinformation”.
The EU can not only be condemned as undemocratic but in parts anti-democratic. Many of the high flyers in the EU are politicians who have been kicked out of office in their own country. They then get a rather cushy job in the EU. IM sure each country has many of this ilk they can point to.
This does work both ways. We keep hearing of the (probably exaggerated) disasters about to befall the UK if we leave the EU. Or, the lovely peace that the EU has given to the whole of Europe; peace that will be at risk if the project doesn’t keep moving forward. Both sides play on fear and myth.
I agree entirely. I am despairing at the incredible lack of reasoned, fact-based debate from both sides, but at the moment it seems the anti-EU side are simply shouting louder. A lot louder.
It’s one of the reasons I am generally unenthusiastic about referendums.
I don’t think it did. “No” ran a bad campaign, we hear, while “Yes” were very effective, but they still lost by ten points. A few people got terribly exercised when a couple of late outlier polls suggested a close race, but all other polls, and the actual vote, confirmed what we complacent people had been saying all along, that Scotland would not vote to leave the UK.
I’ll not say anything more on the Scottish referendum here, but whichever way you cut it, a surge of over ten points one way does not represent a vote of confidence in the Union by the Scottish, and nothing more than a stay of execution, pending retrial.
Europe has gone 70 years without a war between its nations.
If only for that reason the EU is a worthwhile enterprise to maintain.
Yugoslavia doesn’t count?
Apparently not. Neither does the thing in the Ukraine, or the time Turkey invaded Cyprus, or when the Soviets invaded Czecholslovakia to take out Dubchek.
Will the introduction of a UKIP-supporting family into EastEnders make a difference in how the public sees the EU?
I was wrong about legal immigrants. The figures I had in mind were about illegal immigrants, and the UK ranked 5th, after Germany, France, Italy, and a central European country, I believe Romania.
If you’re from the UK you have a prime minister who seats at the EU council. The commission was proposed by this council and voted in by the parliament you also elected.
Of course maybe you meant that you had no say in the choice of the UK prime minister since he isn’t elected directly and his name didn’t appear on your ballot papers. If so, I feel your pain for living in such an undemocratic country.
To go on a tangent - why is it that the EU has never entertained the thought of having European-wide direct elections for their leader? If people like Barroso and Van Rompuy were all appointed to their position by the European Council, you do kind of end up with a “revenge of the nerds” scenario where the leaders are unelected bureaucrats.
Maybe it would go a long way to legitimizing the EU to skeptics if there were U.S. style presidential elections…
Most of the EU member states do not elect their head of government directly - they have parliamentary systems. The member states (who negotiate the treaties which constitute and govern the EU) are unlikely to agree to a process for selecting the EU chief executive which arguably gives him a stronger direct democratic mandate than they themselves have. There is constant tension between the Union and the member States (as the current spat over the UK contribution shows) and the last thing the member states want to do is to weaken their own position relative to the Union.
so you mean “nowhere” The leaders are not “elected” by the people.
The UK prime minister is the head of the party whose name appears on every ballot paper in the UK. Plus he stood for direct election in a real constituency by real people.
I know that when I vote for a certain party in the UK I will get certain leader and an executive with a certain manifesto.
The same is not true of the EU. When votes are cast in European elections I have no way of knowing who will lead me.
The UK is not perfect and I would make changes to the system but certainly it is demonstrably more democratic than the EU.