If an elected MEP took any action, it was because an unelected EU Commission proposed it. The reverse is also true - if an unelected EU Commission didn't propose it, the elected MEP is powerless to do so. Do you see a problem with this? Um. Really? Government will, in these kind of cases, do what they are told. By the Public or by think-tanks. We the public trust the Government to enact on our behalf, and if we don't like what their think-tanks are telling a given government, we elect a different crew, with their own "advisors". If an idea gains traction with the public, because there has been discussion of it in the public sphere, Government is then quick enough (LOL, no, they are really slow) to jump on the issue and legislate. However, in order for people to engage the Government, people have to get involved - writing, demonstrating, rioting, etc. Government at the best of times is lethargic and lazy and hates getting things done, unless it is things that help "their chums", their chosen demographic - Bankers, Trade Unionists, etc. This lethargy has increased exponentially since the late 1990s, as more and more government takes place in Brussels and less takes place in Westminster. Most of the UK politicians we have now are mere placeholders, they are not leaders. Useless salary-stealers. Currently, the UK Government is being told to do things by an unelected EU Commission. This EU Commission tells both the major parties and most of the minor parties what to do. If we vote out Remainer Tories, we get Remainer Labour. And vice versa. Leavers have told all the parties (except the LibDems and the Greens, bless 'em) not to listen to the EU. Leavers won the vote and so their voices are heard first and foremost. I have explained already why the EU "cares about the people", but I will explain it again: The EU will not become a supranational government, an empire, by displaying naked ambition and putting in place unpopular legislation. It will achieve its goals by appearing to be benign, by introducing "just laws", by demonstrating its bona fides - it has so many people completely bamboozled by this - but at the same time inserting its tentacles into every nook and cranny of member state governance. You can see this in action over the timeline since the Seventies - a trade association, a "community", an ever-closer union (but no EU army, hey!), ever-closer union and wouldn't an EU army be a great idea! Oh, and you cannot set your own budgets or keep your own currency any more. Thin end of an ever-moving, ever-thickening wedge. Well, duh! It is tiresome : o ) Apologies for giving up and losing the will to live half-way through Jim's list. I will do better, promise. The EU will prevent interference in a National Government's activities by interfering in a National Government's activities? You want to go there, really? I understand that. Some of the listed activities are arguably beneficial. If the Tories wanted to entirely ignore the well-being of the country, you may be tempted to seek out Labour as an alternative. And vice versa. What I have yet to see explained is why, if neither Labour nor Tory are acceptable, one would want to have a foreign power intercede "on the people's behalf". In particular, a power where the generation of legislation is not accessible to the voting public and a power whose anti-democratic track record, when being balked by the democratic process, would be wildly entertaining if it wasn't so serious and downright chilling in its ramifications. I'm a leaver who has looked at the upsides of being in the EU - there are some - and who has considered the downsides. The result of my evaluation is clear, or it should be. It is less clear to me how Remainders are able come down on the opposite side of the fence - they see the same upsides as I do but they are eerily silent on the downsides. I find this mysterious and frustrating in equal measure.
If an elected MEP took any action, it was because an unelected EU Commission proposed it. The reverse is also true - if an unelected EU Commission didn't propose it, the elected MEP is powerless to do so. Do you see a problem with this? unelected? how do they get to be in the commision?
if i'v posted it, chances are i have seen enough to beleive it or had the thaught myself. it should be obviuos why i tend to cut and paist.
Oh Dear Goat. I knew someone would fall into this but I hoped, just hoped, it wouldn't be finderman. He's been doing so well before yesterday. Who voted for the Commissioners, finderman? You? Me? Who? wat
The problem with this response is that you say "unelected EU Commission" like it's something that only happens in the EU. The full story is here: http://www.democraticaudit.com/2016/06/23/is-the-eu-really-run-by-unelected-bureaucrats/ but the TL;DR version is: And, in many ways, the way the [EU] Commission is now chosen is similar to the way the UK government is formed. Neither the British Prime Minister nor the British cabinet are ‘directly elected’ And as such, the EU Commission works only to propose laws which have been suggested by MEPs, and "proposing" laws is very different to "deciding" upon laws, and there are minimum standards for EU laws to be passed, for which the UK has it's own voting and veto rights.
And the problem is that many times these popular proposals can be easily voted down by the government whips proposing voting against them, or making amendments to water down the laws, or just dropping them altogether. Think of things like minimum standards for rental homes being fit to live in being voted against by MPs who have a sideline in rental properties (source: https://fullfact.org/economy/did-mps-vote-against-homes-having-be-made-fit-live-in/ ) I see the EU as a safety net to ensure that all governments within the block are working for the safety and security of all the people within, which is why we have enjoyed the longest period of peace in Europe in modern history.
^ its not perfect, it aint quick (PR Govs never are) but its better than any alternative being proposed
