3 ms·

It's not 'scary'. The term Europe has become a metonym for the EU[1]. In the media and in public discourse. The EU parliament is elected and have the final say

It's not 'scary'. The term Europe has become a metonym for the EU[1]. In the media and in public discourse. The EU parliament is elected and have the final say on laws. While I agree it's way too bureaucratic, it's still a voluntary club and there are check and balances. The simple fact is that the EU is a remarkable achievement. That Europe could emerge from the smouldering tribal ruins of the early 20th century and build a continent-wide union of prosperity and peace is incredible. It ain't perfect but it also ain't the boogyman some morons make it out to be. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metonymy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metonymy

sonnyblarney 8y ago
+ The EU Parliament has very little influence on law making in the EU. They do not create, write or formulate law - they have only the ability to reject it. Yes - they can work with the Executive to evolve legislation, however in practice, this is not really the case with most legislation. I'd argue that individual nations, via the Council etc. have more influence than Parliament. Once again: the EU Executive is totally unelected, and fundamentally unnacountable. 2) The EU - post Treaty of Lisbon - is not a 'remarkable thing' - it's a failing system. From 1950-2000 it was more or less an economic Union, less so a political one. Surely, European nations coming together post WW2 is 'remarkable' - but much of that is simply the 'new world order' , and of course the EEC. Most European nations would be happy to participate in an EEC-like union of some kind - which was the basis of the 'remarkable era' that you describe. Put another way: if Europe was right now, in a fully EEC-like Union, much like NAFTA, with visa-free travel, easy work visas, relatively frictionless borders, and some level of political cooperation - would Europeans vote to enact a political union? (Especially one in which the laws were made by an unelected group?) the answer would be a resounding 'No'. The number of shape-shifting arguments that pro-EU folks have to get into to side step the democratic illegitimacy of the Executive is utterly astonishing. Nobody seems to be able to provide a basic, decent argument for why in fact those who make the laws in Europe are not elected. Most political leaders have to bend with the political wind, that's usually a good thing. Jean-Claude Junker et. al. do not care one bit what Europeans think, because they don't have to.
- philwelch 8y ago
  > Put another way: if Europe was right now, in a fully EEC-like Union, much like NAFTA, with visa-free travel, easy work visas, relatively frictionless borders, and some level of political cooperation - would Europeans vote to enact a political union? (Especially one in which the laws were made by an unelected group?) the answer would be a resounding 'No'. They voted to create the EU in the first place, which is why the EU exists. They can vote to leave the EU, and one country has. But most countries haven't, and won't.
- disgruntledphd2 8y ago
  > Once again: the EU Executive is totally unelected, and fundamentally unnacountable. So, presumably you're talking about the Commission here, right? So, the EU structure is pretty weird, and I would agree with you that a much more democratic structure is possible and indeed preferable. But it's not an unelected executive. It's an executive entirely controlled by the Council of Ministers. They are the people who really don't want more EU-level democracy (like a parliament which can enact laws), because it weakens their power as national governments. Instead, they argue about stuff for years in Council, they win loads of concessions, and then they go home and blame "Europe" for the decisions which they (claim to) disagree with. (Are you here, Mr Cameron?) Like the EU tend to do a good job of acting like they're evil, but it tends to come from the wildly divergent interests of the states, the commission and the parliament. A lot of the real nastiness got exposed by the financial crises, and it's a terrible shame that we don't have eurobonds for financing capital investment across the EU, but again, that's not because the EU are "evil", it's because the Germans won't let it happen (the French wanted it desperately). I think what I dislike the most about Brexit, is that it distorts the EU balance of power. Britain often acted as a swing state between France and Germany, and without that influence, things are going to get strange.

sonnyblarney 8y ago

+ The EU Parliament has very little influence on law making in the EU. They do not create, write or formulate law - they have only the ability to reject it. Yes - they can work with the Executive to evolve legislation, however in practice, this is not really the case with most legislation. I'd argue that individual nations, via the Council etc. have more influence than Parliament. Once again: the EU Executive is totally unelected, and fundamentally unnacountable. 2) The EU - post Treaty of Lisbon - is not a 'remarkable thing' - it's a failing system. From 1950-2000 it was more or less an economic Union, less so a political one. Surely, European nations coming together post WW2 is 'remarkable' - but much of that is simply the 'new world order' , and of course the EEC. Most European nations would be happy to participate in an EEC-like union of some kind - which was the basis of the 'remarkable era' that you describe. Put another way: if Europe was right now, in a fully EEC-like Union, much like NAFTA, with visa-free travel, easy work visas, relatively frictionless borders, and some level of political cooperation - would Europeans vote to enact a political union? (Especially one in which the laws were made by an unelected group?) the answer would be a resounding 'No'. The number of shape-shifting arguments that pro-EU folks have to get into to side step the democratic illegitimacy of the Executive is utterly astonishing. Nobody seems to be able to provide a basic, decent argument for why in fact those who make the laws in Europe are not elected. Most political leaders have to bend with the political wind, that's usually a good thing. Jean-Claude Junker et. al. do not care one bit what Europeans think, because they don't have to.

philwelch 8y ago
> Put another way: if Europe was right now, in a fully EEC-like Union, much like NAFTA, with visa-free travel, easy work visas, relatively frictionless borders, and some level of political cooperation - would Europeans vote to enact a political union? (Especially one in which the laws were made by an unelected group?) the answer would be a resounding 'No'. They voted to create the EU in the first place, which is why the EU exists. They can vote to leave the EU, and one country has. But most countries haven't, and won't.
disgruntledphd2 8y ago
> Once again: the EU Executive is totally unelected, and fundamentally unnacountable. So, presumably you're talking about the Commission here, right? So, the EU structure is pretty weird, and I would agree with you that a much more democratic structure is possible and indeed preferable. But it's not an unelected executive. It's an executive entirely controlled by the Council of Ministers. They are the people who really don't want more EU-level democracy (like a parliament which can enact laws), because it weakens their power as national governments. Instead, they argue about stuff for years in Council, they win loads of concessions, and then they go home and blame "Europe" for the decisions which they (claim to) disagree with. (Are you here, Mr Cameron?) Like the EU tend to do a good job of acting like they're evil, but it tends to come from the wildly divergent interests of the states, the commission and the parliament. A lot of the real nastiness got exposed by the financial crises, and it's a terrible shame that we don't have eurobonds for financing capital investment across the EU, but again, that's not because the EU are "evil", it's because the Germans won't let it happen (the French wanted it desperately). I think what I dislike the most about Brexit, is that it distorts the EU balance of power. Britain often acted as a swing state between France and Germany, and without that influence, things are going to get strange.