You do participate in the election of the laws that govern you! You presumably voted in the Parliament that decided to trigger Article 50 which meant we left the EU. If we re-enter you will vote in the Parliament that decides how we do. Such Parliaments also decide on our membership of both NATO and the UN, so your participation in that is no different. Our Parliament is sovereign. You help to choose it. What you seem to want is a direct democracy in which the people directly decide on everything, which is completely impractical in a country like ours.

You just don’t like the EU model. Which is fair enough. I think it can be improved so that the Parliament has a bigger role and people feel more connected to it. However on balance I believe it delivers more by us being a member than it takes away and that reform is better achieved inside than out.

I am convinced we will rejoin, probably in stages via a better “deal” initially followed by some kind of associate membership possibly as the EU divides into an inner and outer group.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Matt Le Tissier on what happened to him around the covid madness.

[Tweet Link]

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

You did though particate. You voted in our elections which produced Parliaments which could, if they wished, have decided to trigger Article 50 at any time. They chose who became Ministers. Those Ministers attended the Council of Ministers meetings in which new laws were discussed and either approved or rejected. The Prime Minister also attended the European Council where general policy and direction are discussed so that the Commission can be directed.

In fact we voters had more input into the decision making process of the EU than either the UN or NATO.

I do not share your cynical dismissal of the EU. In my opinion it’s a force for good and a much safer place for us than either being alone or hanging onto the coat-tails of the USA. You are as entitled to your opinion as I am to mine. We both have to accept that it’s only the collective decision of us all that decides who governs us. I certainly do, and I want them to do it and never again ask the people directly via a referendum. That for me has always been my priority.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

None because as I have patiently explained it doesn’t work like that in the EU. That’s the job of the Commission who work to the priorities given to them by the Council and then examined, improvements proposed and eventually verified by the Parliament and Council of Ministers. It’s at those levels that our representatives are involved. Not in the early leg work of trying to find a draft that can work in 27 different locations. They have the experts able to do that. The Parliamentarians then examine the results from their specific perspectives. I doubt it could actually work any other way.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

quote=georgenorman;3847574]

The Commission is not told what to do by anybody. From the EU's own website: "The European Commission is the EU’s politically independent executive arm. It is alone responsible for drawing up proposals for new European legislation … The European Commission is responsible for planning, preparing and proposing new European laws. It has the right to do this on its own initiative … The European Commission is the sole EU body capable of proposing new legislation."

Attached is that far right nationalist, Tony Benn on the EU and its Council of Ministers.
[Link]

Edited by georgenorman (09 Jan 2024 9.21pm)

That is simply untrue.

The Commission is bound by the Treaties on which areas it can address and which it cannot. Treaties that have been agreed by our elected representatives and its priorities are defined by the Council during their quarterly meetings.

As a non political institution how it operates needs to be seen in its context. It needs to emphasise its independence from the politicians hence the particular phraseology. All new legislation is indeed initiated by the Commission. That’s one of its key functions. It doesn’t though enact any proposals. That’s done by the politicians. Anything that’s outside the EU’s remit, or not considered a priority, would be rejected so the Commission would be foolish to attempt it.

It works differently because it needs to work differently. The EU is not a federation with any kind of central control. It is an association of the willing. Countries prepared to work together to harmonise regulations in their mutual interests. The benefits flowing from that are very clear. The downside wholly imaginary and based on outdated ideas that don’t serve today and even less serve the future of our children.

[Link]

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

That’s very simply because that’s not the way it works. The Commission, being totally non political, keeps all politicians at arms length to ensure that their role is maintained as completely independent in approach. That way they avoid even the appearance of political interference. The involvement of the politicians comes separately, via their own institutions, the Council and the Parliament, when they define priorities and then scrutinise and approve, or disapprove the results before enacting any actual laws.

Benn, as a politician, may well have been frustrated and tried to involve himself. He had a perfect right to do so and argue for change but the way it is currently set up that’s not what happens and I can see why. There are some tasks that are better done independently and without having to worry about having any politician riding their favourite hobby horse through the process. Their opportunities come later when the whole package is ready and other politicians can also chime in.

You may not like this style of democracy. I sense you are the type who believes we should have the right to take decisions, by binding referendums, on all kinds of issues. I imagine you would want the people to directly decide on capital punishment for instance, or whether we refuse all asylum seekers or to ban the recognition of transgenders. I don’t. I want our representatives to decide after they have received the advice of, and seen the results of the work from, the professional experts we employ to help them.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.