For the 28 EU member states to maintain 28 sets of embassies and consulates in all the countries of the world costs, and has always cost, many billions. The EU joint service will enable vast savings of government expenditure, by all 28 states, annually into the future. It is hilarious that you should want to spin these huge savings into the opposite. Nice try, but I doubt anyone will buy it. Incidentally, any other nation would be rather proud to have one of its own, in this case a Brit, in an important and influential international position - I think you are on your own in lacking all pride.
Of course you may address me as John, although technically it should be johnv, but as I often drop the 1950 John will do perfectly well. No joke Pete, is Parliament not the ultimate authority ? (lets not get into the role of the Queen) Although the positions of head of government and cabinet ministers are not elected directly those who hold these roles have been elected as MP's after facing a vote by the people. No Commissioner faces a vote of the people.
That would be all perfectly OK if we had a United States of Europe, but we don't, not yet anyway and I hope we never will. At which point did the people of the UK vote for Baroness Ashton to represent them in any way ?
Putting aside all Pete said, hence the dots , he has pointed to another great problem here whic hsupports my vue as to why referendum is bad idea. Some are not interested in EU so will not vote or make uninfomred decission, some are informed by one side but not the other while limited few are actually aware of what the rules are. YOu make a referendum now you will regreat it very soon afterwards. That is my view and anyone has the right to disagree. I am not 100% pro EU but I do believe they are not doing as bade job as they are being painted as by UK media/politics. It is not only imigration, legislation, what money is paid in. It is also trade, it's restrictions (or rather lack of them), free internal market, travel, possible co-operation between countries (if it happens), similar rules and regulations for trade which makes producing items cheaper and simpler. One approval type, entire europe market.
But the whole point is that that is not what MEP's do. That is what the Commission does. I do not agree that the Commission is analogous to the Civil Service. The Civil Service is under the control of a Minister who, although appointed by the PM, has also been elected by the people, that is not the case with the Commission.
Do you not like the idea of democracy Lucaz ? The UK buys more from the EU than they buy from us and that represents a small percentage of British overseas trade.
Who appointed the Commission? Who appointed the appointer of the Commission? You are simply describing layers of civil service beneath an elected body of representatives: every democratic nation or entity has these.
See post #8. The European Council comprises the elected heads of the member states. We will have to disagree on the similarities between the Commission and the Civil Service. To my mind the difference is one of accountability and at which point there is a link with the electorate.
I'm not suggesting that the EU model for government is better than UK one - I am suggesting that they are equally bad. The extent of accountability is, theoretically, marginally but barely different ... but in practice - completely absent in both cases.
And that is to be good how. EU will impose import tax or anything made outside EU. That means the little you sell will not sell at all. That means less money to buy stuff. Companies producing for EU maker, not necessarily a British company just one based here, will pack their bags and move to within EU to keep more competitive prices. Loss of jobs here less money yet again to buy stuff, on top goods they would make to sell in uk would go up in price minimum by transport costs. As EU imposed import duties do you think UK government will not do the same? So coupled with less money from above goods would again go up in price. That's assuming UK market would keep same safety, standards and labelling as EU, if not another cost. A bunch off seemingly small waves creates big tsunami when combined. Real life example more cars put together in UK are sold in Europe then here. Statistics as bigger market there. Car manufacturer would have to either increase prices and loose clients, even worse to another company, absorb the price hike into profits (yes right) or gradually move production to be again within EU until they shutdown here. Especially that there are countries out in EU where labour cost is much lower then here in first place which for many is already enough reason to go. Do not even start to say that UK could negotiate a deal to stay in common trade area. If you leave and end up on better terms (keep the free flow of goods/services but pay nothing in and ignore all EU rules) that many other countries will want the same and there is end of EU there. They will make sure that if you leave you will regret it, you will be the example.
From the little insight I've had in the drafting and finalisation of some EU regulations in my industry. I am left questioning the value of them and so fundamentally the EU itself. Particularly in the direction it has been heading. The net impact is a lot more bureaucracy (costing UK manufacturing £27 billion?), the burden of assessments, expensive auditing and lack of flexibility, or the ability to adapt quickly to make necessary changes. This relates to fire protection where the UK already had a perfectly suitable regime that is still used in some other countries outside the EU. As an example; What is the benefit of CE marking to 1) Joe Public & 2) Products sold into the USA? (A MUCH more important market to the UK than the EU) I think a lot of people (including myself) find the loss of powers to Brussels over matters that should still be determined by UK politicians, a major problem. If the EU had remained a "common market" it would have been a lot more successful. As it stands, it is making a lot of EU countries less competitive internationally. The Euro, and the ultimate goal of a single treasury with common tax rates, and full integration of countries, is ultimately doomed to fail. There have been a series of sticking plasters applied that have kept the Euro together but for how long will the German public want to keep subsidising the lazy (as they see them) Southern Europeans? We need less Government, lower tax, more flexibility, to have a chance of starting to dig ourselves (and the West in general) out of the huge debt we have built up. Oh and then there is the complete lack of any financial auditing of the EU and the amount of misuse of funds and corruption that it would expose..............but that's another subject for another time.
