I think (very quickly) that we should leave the EU unless we decide to fully join, as in actually adopt the Euro. There should not be a half measure on in and out the EU, it should be one or the other.

Apart from that I am slightly negatively disposed to the EU because most decisions are made by the unelected council of ministers.

Anyway, work to be done

How are the Council of Ministers "unelected"? Are you actually referring to the EU Commission?

Well....

I would say that when you elect a minister, you elect someone to represent your opinions. When a minister is elected they may be a minister in part of a larger government which although they control a segment of policy (under their supposed control, it is mainly led by government policy) they are not totally in control.

So we hold EU elections by which a number of people are elected into the EU parliament. Yet it is the government that sends someone, who has been elected by only a small proportion of the population to represent the country on major issues, who will also hold voting sway.

You should see the angle I am coming at from, although I admit it reads rather haphazardly. You see, I think that for someone to represent the country as a whole on some pretty major issues, they should be elected by the country. I will be frank and admit that the method of election eludes me, for such a system would be complicated.

Is it not also true that in the council of ministers there is a secret ballot style of voting? Not only have these ministers been placed in positions of power in Europe with only small amounts of the votebut they arent actually accountable either.

I am sure that it may come to mind that the parallel to this is the UK ministers in parliament, however I would agree with comments John Major made to a Select Committee recently suggesting that the pool for ministers should be opened up to unelected people as well, thus offering a seperation of legislature and executive more similar to the US. It shows the difference in powers, a EU minister in the council has massive sway representing a country, a minister in the UK merely leads a body which suggests, yet has no real legislative power.

So that is the justification, I will summarise in a line or two, because the above was kind of rushed whilst trying to do other pieces of work
- EU Council Ministers are elected only locally as an MP, then given power beyond their stature.
- The secret ballot should be abolished, currently unable to tell who is voting for what (this includes EU Parl as well)
- Largescale voting practices should be bought in that specifically target these key EU positions and allow a greater degree of legitimate mandate to be given to these ministers.
-Minor parties in the UK have no say in this council, all ministers are chosen by govt.


So for instance Mr Darling was elected in Edinburgh South West, has a majority of 7242 in the last election. He is Chancellor of the Exchequer, yet this role is supported by experts and has no legislative power other than to formulate. Using this small majority he is also propelled into representing Britain in the Council of Ministers (I forget which one of the areas he represents on). Surely such a position should be fulfilled by someone elected by the population?

But the same system applies to British Ministers. I don't remember electing Peter Mandelson into office! Or Gordon Brown for that matter. They are only elected by their constituents.

Yes, hence the various bits that say:







Which I think is a rather fundamental difference.

That makes no sense, are you honestly suggesting that the British government is virtually powerless?

Also when these ministers meet to make laws they are supposed to act in the best interests of the whole EU, not just their national interest.

Would you care to show an example of their power? (also it may be a bit hyperbolic to say that the government is powerless, I am more saying that it is not a democratic enough process to justify the representative, or open enough to allow a check on their decisions).

Also I feel this may have been slightly misinterpretted, I am saying that the ministers cannot themselves legislate within the UK itself, it requires a body encorporating the WHOLE electorates representatives to legislate. I am not saying the government cannot legislate - far from it, I am merely saying that these individiual ministers in the EU are being granted massive extra powers in roles which should have greater public scrutiny over the occupants. So at home = whole electorate has legislative effect, in the EU it is diminished to little more than the electorate of the constituency of the minister involved).



Well, they are supposed to merely convey the position of their department regarding a matter, however whether this happens or not, or how closely followed this idea is, is certainly up for debate. After all, there are no voting records to look at!

(the closed ballot system is a MAJOR weakness of the supposed democracy of the EU, how can you choose a representative when you cannot even tell their opinions on previous matters!!!! How can a government be sure their minister is voting in the decided direction!!!)

I only did the first year, and I'm guessing you don't have a crazy Welsh guy who liked BBQ's for a teacher? Seriously, whenever it was sunny we'd have a BBQ...
We missed a whole day of school to go see Kinky Boots at the cinema because one of the characters mentioned "niche market"

No we didn't have that but your lucky that wasn't coupled with me and this other lad who used to distract the class with economic tangents and general tom foolery


-Tombolt had a good point there in the "crunch" the bank of England interest rates went down but heavily risky finance like bank loans and credit card rates increased mainly because of the fact that lending is done between banks and they set an interbank lending rate and they provide loans at whatever rate they want to so the BOE rate can often mean sweet FA. But it does give them all a nice excuse to keep what they have to pay savers well down.

As far as teaming up with other relatively small countries gives us alot more clout against the emerging powers.
Sending the interest rate and monetary supply decisions into Europe stops politicians trying to artificially inflate the economy which lead to massive fluctuations in price due to inflation. Also keeps us also with a nice bit of general currency stability.

Plus being in the euro-zone means you have to have some level of economic stability that means having sensible public spending i.e. giving eyebrow someone to answer to in the short term.
Currently “Brussels” don’t have any supreme power over our parliament which is sovereign, but for parliament as long as nothing starkly bothers them policy wise (ie the euro) they let it pass into effect in the UK.
And calling the EU Brussels is another example of how the mainstream media affects our language choice.


Ireland and Denmark soon changed their mind on their relation to the EU when they feel buggered without it and also the fact that the treaties were amended to be more fitting for the constituent countries. Just say imagine we gave Scotland the vote to succeed from the UK 3 years ago there'd be a good chance that we'd have an independent and buggered Scotland, now they'd think otherwise.
An EU parliament based on a more US style gov't one day wouldn't harm. I think there is a lot of resistance to change democratically from the side of the EU that profits and exists because of the lack of democracy will be met along the way but as history teaches me that democracy prevails in the west.


Well Government tends to be efficient in regards to layering since different layers have different functions which are suited to those levels I.e. the UK in Europe:
EU parliament
UK parliament
Devolved parliaments
Unitary authorities/county councils
Local councils

And efficiency is primarily affected by those in charge of that area look at the UK parliament for example the rate of legislation going through has doubled and has created choked morasses of red tape, that only seems to exist to justify MPs existence.





Your interest may miraculously increase when china gobble us up.

What do you want specifically from gov’t at the moment, that is possible t provide and feasible

Our own reform is unlikely to be any quicker or slower as a result of Europe there’s plenty to do that’s not eclipsed in any way by Europe:
Reform of:
MPs pay and expenses
House of Lords
Electoral system [PR over FPTP voting]
Constitution itself

China can do what the [LIFTED] they want. I DON'T GIVE A [LIFTED]!! How many times?? I'm a simple guy, living in the country, who likes the beach, sunset and the stars. I have no interest in other countries trade policies or human rights policies, or "green" policies, or whatever as there's absolutely nothing I can do about it. So why worry? I try to be good to my neighbours and friends and look out for those less fortunate than myself, but ultimately the foreign policy of emerging markets (whilst possibly interesting dinner conversation) is of no concern to me.

</rant>

It's difficult to name what I want specifically from a government as I spend so much time trying to avoid involvement with them. I would much prefer to live off the grid and have nothing to do with them, but in the Westernized world, that's very, very difficult (although David Shayler seems to be managing, perhaps I should develop a serious mental health issue). Either way, I don't feel I get good value for the taxes I pay. However, I'm not sure how it would ever be possible to get good value from government. It's like saying Windows is good value when Linux does everything you want/need.

Our own reform is unlikely to come at all IMO. So perhaps I should agree to disagree with the students of the UK and just leave this thread alone? The way you have been taught has clearly shaped your thinking and that's obviously working for you. I've never responded well to being "taught" anything. I prefer to be engaged and "learn" for myself. Of course with a curriculum and qualifications, that's very difficult to achieve. The government set the curriculum and the current national tone determines what the current crop of students get to hear about. It happened throughout the 20th century with plenty of notably extreme examples. If somebody could demonstrably show me that Europe is good for me, why should be interested? The burden here is on politicians, not me.

Given my utter lack of faith in any kind of organized, hierarchical structure (church/government/police/armed forces/whatever) it'll take more to persuade me than most. Remember the LOTR prologue? "Nine rings where given to the race of men - who above all desire power." Get a bunch of people together and give them some power, then stand back and watch them become corrupt. Every time.

What about the devaluation that still threatens Ireland and Portugal, maybe even Greece and Austria? It wasn't so long ago the Germans were essentially being asked to prop up Latvia (and maybe others) after all the years of being propped up themselves. Far as I know, the Germans are strict when it comes to self-imposed rules IIRC, so that could get bloody difficult...



See above, and I wouldn't want someone else having a say over our public spending to any great effect.



Yeah, currently, and our own politicians can't be trusted to stand up to Europe if it came to it.



The BBC might be mainstream, but I don't buy the likes of The Sun or Daily Mail, much less take what they spout as gospel