Having pondered on this and various other comments I think I’d agree. My push for more democratic accountability is very much my second-best wish. Something to be done in desperation should nothing change. To be clear, my priority would be for a conversation to start on EU reformation and not assume that the current direction of travel is the right one.
I think on that we are not very far apart.
By voting for the Labour party EU candidates, according to someone else’s post. Which makes sense, since Juncker was the canditate of the EPP.
By ousting Cameron, who was supporting Juncker’s candidacy. I understand he’s accountable to you, from what you said?
Besides, the EU parliament can cast a vote of no confidence and oust the commission, and it did once. So, if it’s what you want, petition your EU MPs in the same way you would petition your UK MPs if you wanted them to oust your Prime Minister. I supect you likelihood of success is about the same.
Maybe yes, but then again, if you’re living in labour district, you can be outvoted by all other British citizens. Doesn’t make the election undemocratic, does it?
By the way, this last part seems symptomatic of what I perceive to be the UK attitude since…well, forever…or at least since Thatcher wanted her money back. Yes, being in the EU means that the UK won’t necessarily get its way, that policies that the average Briton wouldn’t approve of will be implemented, that the UK might pay more in than it gets out, and yes, even that people in other countries might vote differently than UKers.
That’s not a lack of democracy, that’s just being part of something larger where what you want locally isn’t necessarily what is implemented. Not different from, say living in a rural district and noticing that national policies benefit urbanites more than farmers, or living in Texas and being offended that the rest of the country elected a socialist , or whatever. You can certainly want the UK to keep more independance, to accept only agreements that clearly benefit the UK, to make EU regulations mere suggestions that can be implemented or not depending on the mood of the British public opinion, etc… But then, just say so , don’t pretend the issue is a lack of democracy.
Finally, the reason for the complexity of European institutions is the desire by member states to keep as much influence as they can. Fervent European federalists are about the only ones who would welcome streamlined institutions and a much more direct political process. Be warry of what you’re asking for. The day when the process will be perfectly to your satisfaction will probably be also the day when the UK will be as independant from Brussels as California is from Washington.
Scotland, Wales, England and Northern Ireland certainly seen to think that democracy is lacking in that model. That very issue is the driver behind devolution of powers to the regions.
Seems strange that at the same time as doing this within the UK for the regions we are heading in the opposite direction in Europe. i.e. a large mass of people are coming under the influence of a law-making body over which they have minimal control or say.
So…remind me of the benefits again?
Your last suggestions are certainly more in line with what I would like to see, I’ve never been shy of saying so.
As it stands your urban/rural example already applies at a nation-state level *and then it also * applies at an EU level. The disenfranchisement of certain regions is raised to power of 2. I am in favour of devolution to the regions, i.e. greater powers for the regions in the UK first and foremost. A ceding of current powers to the EU and a landscape of even more so, goes against that in a fundamental way.
And I clarified my order of priorities in a post above. I’d prefer a reform of the EU but if the current form persists and we remain part of it then greater democracy should prevail.
Yes, it is messy and compromised to such a degree that it is not fit for purpose. And I believe that desire is one that cannot be satisfied to the satisfaction of Europe as a whole but the yet corpse is still twitching.
To make it fully democratic would, as I’ve said in an earlier post, be something of a last resort if all attempts at reform fail. I wouldn’t be happy about it.
The Daily Mash (or was it Newsthump) isn’t actually a real news source.
You get to live and work anywhere in the EU with minimal hassles. You get to study (and teach) anywhere in the EU with minimal hassles. You get to sell your stuff across the EU with minimal hassles and no fear of sudden tariffs or local nationalist power plays. You get to influence the local politics of other countries in domains that directly or indirectly affect you (e.g. the environment, anti-terrorism & criminal justice, standardisation of infrastructures, regulation of financial institutions & fair competition…).
You get to not be at war against Germany and/or France and/or Spain for once, too. So that’s nice.
We had all that under EU rules 20 years ago too but without huge influxes of EU workers. It’s not the existence of the EU that is the problem, but the way it’s expanded in its remit, and I don’t just mean Eastern Europe, since there are also a lot more Germans/Spanish/Italians etc in the UK than there were twenty years ago.
Allowing us to move to their countries is nice and all, but the thing is that every European country teaches English from primary school onwards, whereas we have to choose from all their languages and then don’t get much opportunity to practice it because everyone, when we go abroad in Europe, speaks English and would (understandably) rather do that than listen to you speak their language badly.
If an EU citizen wants to move to Germany and work, they need to speak at least a little German, but not as many countries teach German from primary school age; same for Spanish, Italian, etc. They all teach English.
It’s easier to move for work to the UK than from it for this linguistic reason alone.
But there seems to be no party advocating for a change in the EU, rather than just getting out of it, perhaps because it’s impossible to change it now. We’re left with right-wing parties that want to get out of the EU altogether and left-wing ones that say nothing of note, neither of which works for me regarding this particular issue.
War is a non-sequitur. If the EU disbanded tomorrow England and France wouldn’t take arms against each other the day after, nor any other country in the EU. Perhaps the EU helped this happen, but that doesn’t mean it has to keep continuing to exist in its current form, because that goal has already been achieved.
… Did you actually just whine about the fact that you can go literally *anywhere *on the planet, and people will be able to understand what you’re saying without you having to go through any specialized education whatsoever ? “I am part of a global eco-cultural hegemony, people across the world **have **to learn my language to get anywhere in life, it’s goshdarn oppressive.”
We feel your pain, Mac, we really do.
Obviously I disagree with your premise, BTW. Somebody who wants to move to Germany and work there, or get in business with Germans… can just learn English. They teach it in schools over there, dontcherknow. Obviously you’ll want to be learning more German as you go along, if only for convenience, but you can absolutely get hired or start a business knowing only English.
That’s even more true in the Scandiwegian countries and the Netherlands.
And you reckon this is a permanent toggle ? Never again can European countries ever go to war ever, EU or not ?
Please. We’d be back at it sooner than you can say “economic protectionism”.
Out of interest, is the Republic of Ireland also a prime destination? Because they kind of speak English too.
I was talking about migration within the EU, which does not require visas. UK citizens can go to the USA, etc, but only if they get the requisite visas.
If you want to, as an EU national who is not German, go to work in Germany, it helps if you speak some German. If you want to go and work in the UK, it helps if yu speak some English.
Not as many EU countries teach German to kids as teach English to kids. Therefore there are more countries in the EU who teach their kids a language which can help them move to the UK than to Germany.
And I actually teach some of those kids English, and don’t think that open borders sch as we have are a bad thing, just that they’re not without consequence.
They do. I don’t have any good links for the incomers to the ROI because they all seem a bit skewed one way or another and don’t really take the long-term UK-RI flexible migration into account.
But in any case the people going to to ROI usually have to go through the UK first so if you’re going for somewhere that speaks a language you know, you’ll choose the shortest route.
From here:
3.8% of the population of the UK are non-UK nationals, but nationals of another EU state (and 0.5% of the 3.8% are Irish nationals - i.e. 3.3% of the population are nationals of neither the UK nor Ireland, but of another EU member state). Comparable figures for some other countries: Ireland 8.3% (so, yes, Ireland is a magnet, but 2.3% of the 8.3% are UK nationals. leaving 6% for the rest); Germany, 3.7%; France, 2.1%; Italy, 2.2%, Sweden 3%; Spain, 4.4%.
So, among the larger EU countries, the UK is at the upper end for hosting nationals of other EU states, but isn’t exactly off the scale - the more so if we disregard Irish nationals, who have a right of entry under UK law independent of their rights under EU law.
Total non-national population (both EU and non-EU) in the UK is 7.7%. For comparison Ireland 11.8%, Germany 9.4%, France 6.2%, Italy 7.4%, Sweden 6.9%, Spain 10.9%.
I believe it was before their economy went bust. The chart to which UDS links indicates 16% immigration.
I think the figure you should be looking at is the one farther along: total foreign-born population, 12.3%.
