UKH

This isn't intended as yet another Brexit thread as such, but I am really fascinated how there seems to be two alternative realities available here.

Just like the picture that can either be perceived as that of a beautiful young woman or an old crone, or the picture of the vase that is seen by some as two people arguing, the EU is either seen as a benign and progressive force for good, on the whole administered by responsible, thoughtful and conscientious politicians and civil servants;  or a dark cabal committed to establishing Germany and France as masters of a United States of Europe, and crushing everything in their way. So in the recent negotiations, half of us seem to think the EU are bullies; the other half that there are trying to do the best for everyone in extraordinarily challenging and difficult circumstances.

There's no question which side I'm on, but I'm fascinated where there should be two such clearly different perceptions on what should really not be such a divisive issue. Any explanations, anyone?

I would disagree. I certainly don't think the EU is perfect! There are lots of things that could be improved with the system. However, I would prefer to be part of it than not. I definitely trust the EU to protect the environment, workers rights and uphold food and product safety standards far more than I trust the UK government on these things. 

It is possible to support something that you don't think is ideal!

I think you've proved my point - I don't think the EU is ideal either, plenty of room for improvement - maybe it does only score '7/10'! But it doesn't seem that you - like me - see it as intrinsically evil, which Sun and Mail leader writers do, and which some (not all) of Brexiteers here seem to. Look at Trangia's comments on another thread - I just don't see it like that at all.

Fully agree with girlymonkey. Benign / force for good / conscientious / responsible etc - in my view the EU is no more or less these things than any other political organisation. Which is to say sometimes they are but at other times they are venal, self-serving, short-termist and all the rest of it. The difference is they have a lot of negotiating clout and experience and I'd rather be on the inside with all that behind me than on the outside pushing against it. 

I think the OP represents 2 sub-sections of either argument and by extending those to everyone on one side of the argument (i.e. all remainers think EU is broadly +ve / all leaver think broadly -ve) falls into the tribalism trap that constantly ensnares the brexit debate and is one of the reasons these debates never get anywhere. The truth is both sides are shades of grey. 

I would imagine it is partly perceptions driven by media, social media and politicians.

There are undoubtedly people in the EU who want to either frustrate or be harsh in regards to the UK, not that I have any proof of this and I would imagine they are heavily in the minority. However it is clear there is the same in the UK with Brexiteers frustrating and claiming false things about the EU. This is likely as it backs their agenda and gives them some screen time to say how the EU is being harsh in not being able to easily negotiate a better deal or aren't prepared to renegotiate. However funnily enough, they can't be too lenient incase other EU nations also decide to Exit. It is also worth pointing out we are one nation with a massively divided parliament, whereas they are a group of 27 nations who all have to unilaterally agree to a deal that is given to us (which should be the harder task?) 

In regards to the EU as a whole, they have done some great things and there are some things that people find worrying. Some dislike the idea of a EU army. That is fine, however being part of the EU wouldn't suddenly mean we have to be involved, we have (or soon had) the ability to say "no thanks."

Social media and certain tabloids love criticising the EU and saying that it takes money from us and gives little or nothing back. This website is quite handy although not exhaustive, a little outdated and the geographic locations on the map are sometimes incorrect but still a good pointer https://www.what-europe-does-for-me.eu/en/portal/1/0

Also there are a lot of myths and lies that have come out in the media and from politicians. This covers them quite well: https://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/euromyths-a-z-index/?fbclid=IwAR3h5z5T...

I can't imagine anything will change anytime soon with these perceptions of the EU likely to stay and continuing to divide.  

I think the problem lies in the possibility that what makes it good is also what makes it bad in some people’s eyes 

If we compare it to the pork barrel politics of the states it the EU is highly effective, the EU has passed fairly progressive laws such as the human rights charter, working time directive, various environmental laws and soon tax evasion laws. This I believe is because it is less prone to local politics, and because of the size of the EU less pressure from lobbyists and industry (it’s still bigger than Apple)

I think if you put a bunch of relatively intelligent people in a room and ask them to consider something with expert input they usually come up with the right answer. It’s how those answers are then applied and the outside forces that are applied to them before they make it to law.

The “faceless bureaucrats” can achieve a lot because there is less room for leverage.

British parliamentary committees come up with some very good recommendations, these however get butchered on the way to the statute books or get quietly ignored.

as for American style horse trading it achieves very little and probably worked in an expanding country but is going to be less and less effective with dealing with a changing world.

what I’m saying I guess is what makes the EU semi effective is also what makes it an anathema for some people

I think you are absolutely right.  Also the EU has some fairly explicit philosophical underpinnings.  It owes a lot to idealists like Jean Monnet, Robert Schuman and Konrad Adenauer who had an internationalist agenda based on the their experience of European conflict.  'The European Project' is sometimes difficult to articulate and, of course, is often criticised as undemocratic, but it is at least based on something other than short-term economic expediency and narrow national interests.

You either think this is kind of a good idea, despite its drawbacks and complications, or you see it as an unacceptable challenge to the principle of national sovereignty.  

There is a third perspective - the 'Lexit' version, which has its origins in early left-wing opposition to the European project on the basis that it was a 'bosses club', sustained by the developing EU's adoption of aspects of neo-liberalism. Explains (partly) Corbyn's (unadmitted) position. 

I might be going a bit far here, decide for yourself, but I'd invoke Jonathan Haidt's "Moral Foundations" theory. I think the emotional underpinning of anti-EU sentiment is in-group loyalty, which is an evolved instinct most commonly expressed now as nationalism (if you're not a football hooligan or member of a religion/cult).

The Leave campaign, the "sovereignty" argument, the anti-immigration angle (which crosses over into the sanctity-purity moral dimension), all depend on exploiting the natural emotion of in-group loyalty. Once you perceive the EU as a threat to your beloved national identity that makes you who you are as defined by your in-group, then you are motivated to find any negative perception (or indeed fact) to post-hoc justify your instinctual ("System 1" or "elephant"*) emotional response to the issue.

https://vialogue.wordpress.com/2016/12/14/the-righteous-mind-notes-review/m...

*Daniel Kahneman, Thinking Fast And Slow or Haidt, The Happiness Hypothesis

It's all about the bloody war, what!

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/nov/16/brexit-paranoid-fantasy-fi...

The negative perceptions of the EU have been created deliberately by constant messaging because they are useful for several different groups.

a. The US/UK nexus  which funded Trump and Brexit.   They want the UK out of the EU so they can move it into the US sphere of influence and lock the change in with binding trade treaties.  Their goal is to downsize the state in the UK and replace it with financial services and open the UK market to US corporations in currently protected areas like healthcare and agriculture.     

b. Lazy politicians who find the EU a useful scapegoat for whatever screw up just happened.  The EU gets blamed so often people start to believe it.

c. People like Corbyn who want to do the full socialist state and get blocked by EU rules on state-aid. 

True, but we certainly wouldn’t have got the working time directive in this country without the EU.

we forget that a lot of countries in the EU are more “balanced” than we are in as much as the “bosses” are balanced out by strong unions, hence legislation coming from Europe being more progressive than UK.

this doesn’t excuse things like TTIP, however TTIP is going to be a veritable gift horse to some of the deals we are going to have to bargain for.

through much of Europe the UK is seen as being run for the “bosses” and being business “friendly “ was a brexit promise as was the bonfire of red tape.

I agree. I just wanted to point out that this perspective exists. One thing to add is that Corbyn and co. are interested in old-school style state interventions that would be prevented by current EU regulations, and that's another Lexit attraction. 

I partially agree with the lexit thing, but I also think the amount of leeway governments have had been vastly downplayed by successive governments.

Sorry folks we would have loved to help, steel, shipbuilding, trainlines etc. But our hands were tied by those pesky European bureaucrats, This has played into the small government big business philosophy of the tories  and to a certain extent new labour.

there are ways that our European partners seem to find of supporting industry that we don’t want to acknowledge.

I don't understand your comparison. What are current examples of pork barrelling in the US?

Pork barrel politics is a feature of politics and still going strong in the US plus the incredibly high level of campaign spending required to get into office in the US provides an automatic conflict of interest.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/07/19/pork-barrel...

https://www.bloomberg.com/quicktake/u-s-campaign-finance

Depressingly, I think there's a lot in this.  I can dimly remember from my childhood the echoes of post-war anti-German sentiments (I grew up in Coventry).  I had a primary school friend whose family was German: I remember being taught a few words of the language and the hostile reaction it provoked in the playground.

Then, for twenty years or more, I never heard an anti-German comment until I heard Alan Coren on the News Quiz making the occasional (very funny) quip and more recently Jeremy Clarkson's (less funny and more offensive) comments in the same line.  The Germans were looked up to as excellent engineers and good business partners.  We share an interest in football and beer and I am often struck by how similar German society is to ours (and how different we are to the French).  There was scarcely a murmur when BMW bought Rover and started building the new Mini at Cowley.  People who knew the car industry were grateful for the investment and sound management given the history of BL (and to the Japanese too, for their investments).     

And yet, now the Brexit debate seems to have given quite a few people I thought I knew well the opportunity, indeed encouragement, to express the most virulent and baseless anti-German sentiments.  Generally these are members of the older generation, although too young to have been directly involved in the war.  It seems that they equate the EU with the Greater Germany they fear since reunification and they seem impervious to my arguments that if the French are able to put the war behind them, then surely they should be able to.

I find the obsession of TV channels like Yesterday with Hitler and the Third Reich disturbing.  Of course we need to learn from history.  The Germans certainly have, but the I think this fetishisation, and the disproportionate emphasis of the rise of National Socialism on the GCSE national curriculum are unhealthy.  

I don’t know if you heard Peter Lilley on the Today Programne this morning. Obviously Humphys was asking all the wrong questions, but it was amazing how an arch Brexiter like Lilley was presenting Tusk and the EU as being very helpful, as opposed to the bullying described by the late Brexit Secretary. I appreciate that Lilley is somewhat sharper than Raab.

I think there are a few things going on here.

Most immediately, people just aren't very good at tolerating ambiguity, and tend to fall back to binary thinking. It seems to be the way our brains are wired. For large-scale social issues such as brexit, where there is ambiguity on many interrelated dimensions, this tendency combines with social pressures to re-enforce beliefs and push people towards clustering around separated positions.

As to why we're wired like this, in my opinion Daniel Kahneman's "two systems" theory of thinking is a good pointer. We spend most of our time thinking using "system 1" which is "fast, automatic, frequent, emotional, stereotypic, unconscious". System 2, which is "slow, effortful, infrequent, logical, calculating, conscious" is hard to do, requires effortful training (science, medicine, law)  and evolution doesn't tend to reward us for using it. So we make fast, unconcious, stereotyped decisions. Most of the time that's good enough (e.g. do I run away from this wolly mammoth, or stay and fight?). But it's not very good for big, complex, multi-variate situations that (historically) we rarely face.

Beyond that, it seems that our brains trick us into thinking that our thought processes are more reliable than they actually are. We navigate the world thinking that our beliefs are based on considered responses to solid empirical knowledge about reality - wheras the reality is that people are usually willing to come to conclusions based on meage information of dubious reliability, and rarely change their mind. But it just doesn't feel like that.

And ultimately our internal picture of reality and our thoughts are in our brains, and brains are meat machines fed by sugar and hormones. There is a growing body of evidence that political beliefs, are ultimately determined by some biological and physiological characteristics of individuals. I'm always surprised by how rarely this is discussed and how resistant people are to considering it. I think that tells us something abut ourselves.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_political_orientation

(Turned into an essay. Sorry.)

"Adults in the room" the book on Greece's negotiations with the EU on their debt crisis is essential reading for anyone wishing to read between the lines on what the EU are really playing at.

They are not an evil organisation, of course not, but they do behave in unreasonable ways in order to secure what is best for the EU "establishment" and of course the establishment is dominated by Germany.

Gavin Hewitt 's book on the Eurozone crisis is also worth reading in order to give context to the Greek tragedy inside the greater economic crisis in Europe.

In my view the EU is undemocratic, inefficient and ponderous. It has made some dreadful blunders which have put back European integration by a generation. However the EU had improved the life of the average citizen and is thus an organisation worth remaining in.

I think both perceptions are wrong and unrealistic. Perhaps because of this there can be no reasonable compromise (although the  full half vs half is obviously an exaggeration).
The EU has a duty to do the best for its constituent countries (in the widest context this would include making it unattractive for more countries to leave). One cannot expect it to be kind to the UK, which will not be a member but will be a competitor, at its own expense. (I suppose some interpret this behaviour as bullying). 

When it boils down to it Brexit is about a failure of democracy and political discourse  - its easy to paint the other 'side' as evil, mendacious, a failure etc rather than engage in reasoned discussion. 

Lobbying at E.U. gov level is epic compared to U.K. gov, why would it not be?

D

This is a really interesting area, but 'ultimately determined' may be a bit strong - I don't think it's developed enough to say this, and rather like the nature-nurture problem there will be a complex balance of factors involved. I suspect the debate will be going on for a long time! This paper is well worth a read - gives a good sense of how physiological factors have an influence:

http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/367/1589/640

Yes, you're right. I agree that the evidence doesn't support that strong a claim. I was trying to make a case Rob's "two alternative realities" arising at least partly from a hierarchy of psychological factors with evolutionary and biological causes. But I was probably getting too enthusiastic, and certainly I agree it's not completely biologically determined.

Thanks for the link - will read it tonight.

The EU establishment is definitely not "dominated by Germany". Quite the contrary, we are underrepresented at any level relative to population and contribution (number of voters per MP compared to the smaller nations, number of EU personnel at almost any level including the fact that commissioners are selected by country not population, ....).

CB

I was wondering about that too.  It definitely isn't my impression either, not the EPO (OK, that's not technically an EU institution but it's definitely a bastion of the Project), nor the Commission (DG Comp anyway).  Both seem to be a pretty even spread of nationalities. 

You should read Yannis Varafoukis' book. Influence has little to do with MEPs .

Personally I regard the European Parliament as superfluous to the functioning of the EU.

I take it as a confirmation that the morden progressive left takes democracy as an obstacle and anachronism

I suspect GM is simply liking what she sees.

I agree with you though that there is a commonly held belief that the EU is and always will be a social democratic organisation when of course it may swing left or right and one of the issues I have with it is there's not much I feel I can do about that. I am one more stage removed from EU democracy than I am from UK democracy.

You don't think there's an emotional underpinning of pro eu sentiment expressed in group loyalty?

If not, how do you explain this sort of thing?

https://cdn1.img.sputniknews.com/images/106713/95/1067139562.jpg

There's nothing rational about it.

I can't explain that. But I don't believe that any meaningful number of remain voters were voting on the basis of in-group loyalty as Europeans. There would be lots of other non-rational, identity-related reasons to vote remain, i.e. that's what people like me or people I respect are voting, but that's different in-group loyalty/pseudonationalism.

Likewise, our beneficial reciprocal rights in Europe as EU citizens were described in a form of hate speech by Theresa, my middle name is hostile, May yesterday as EU people "jumping the queue" ahead of people from (iirc) Delhi.

The shit hate stirring bitch!

Having known our kids called nazis on the school bus by pig ignorant local kids because their mother is German I can't express my anger with this shitty PM sufficiently, as she ie obviously indifferent to whether she causes more spite in the future

I’m no-one‘s idea of the modern progressive left and would trust the EU over our government on issues like the environment, employment rights and food standards.  It’s only indirectly related to democracy but the EU can afford to take a longer term, more objective and less partisan line on these issues because it isn’t playing to a short-term local constituency.  

I explain it as people wanting to show their support for the EU, why are emotions such bad things? It doesn't mean something is wrong because you have emotions for it, it also doesn't mean you have to throw any logical thought out of the window either.

The E U Commission will not be putting their Brexit policy to a vote at the European Parliament.

Oligarchs......and I voted Remain.

Technically they are not oligarchs

also EU parliament get to vote on approval of the final brexit deal and the EU parliament has voted on several resolutions in moving forward with negotiations on Brexit. So more votes than the UK parliament.

Also the EU has fielded a better team than us I think after David Davies and Rab we really should look long and hard at our own political system of old boys networks and it’s lack of accountability.

The EU is by no means a perfect organisation with lots of room for improvement, Something we are no longer able to be part of

Technically they are not oligarchs

also EU parliament get to vote on approval of the final brexit deal and the EU parliament has voted on several resolutions in moving forward with negotiations on Brexit. So more votes than the UK parliament.

Also the EU has fielded a better team than us I think after David Davies and Rab we really should look long and hard at our own political system of old boys networks and it’s lack of accountability.

The EU is by no means a perfect organisation with lots of room for improvement, Something we are no longer able to be part of

Judging from your posts you appear as a prime example why it was a giant mistake to accept the former Warsaw block states into the EU. Most simply want the money, but are not willing to contribute much to the political project that preceded their accession and was also clearly spelled out.

There are obvious similarities to the behaviour of the UK during the duration of its membership with its rebates and opt outs.

CB

You are probably right. We have participated in the fall of three empires over the past 100 years we were part of. The fourth may be in turn

Funny think is: All those empires used a similar language and declared similar goals (yes, even the Third Reich did) and every time it turned wrong.

Maybe we have some right to be suspicious - especially when we are told to shut up every time we have objections

Democracy in what sense? The EU is not the    undemocratic institution it is described as by many (ignorance or malice). When the U.K. leaves the EU, it will substantially increase the democratic deficit, not reduce it!

Interesting. Dave G admits that well, actually the EU isn't very democratic but they do have our best interests at heart and your statement is based on the premise that the UK was wrong to complain that it was paying the EU too much money and moaning about all sorts of other details.

When people bang on about loss of sovereignty this is what they're on about. Taking rules but not having much say in their making. It doesn't have to be like that.

Well there's a sign of that gestalt disconnect, right there. Equating the EU with the Third Reich -  'similar goals' -  is so far from my perception that you might as well be on a different planet. 

I'm not sure how anyone can rationally sustain that position, perhaps you'd care to try?

You are not being told to shut up, but you are expected to read beforehand what you sign up to.

CB

And (no surprise) Trump wants to bring back the pork...

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/10/us/politics/trump-earmarks-pork-barrel-s...

Which means if they are wrong the harm is much bigger because they cannot be corrected by voters. My country (Czechia) was driven from a long term perspective, run by experts for 40 years and damage they commited was enormous

'Taking rules but not having much say in their making. It doesn't have to be like that.'

People talk about 'taking rules' as if the EU do that for fun. They don't. They are an essential part of a frictionless free trade mechanism. If a manufacturer in the UK wants to source components, he/she can do so throughout Europe knowing that relevant standards have been hammered out and adhered to, that there is an arbitration mechanism for dealing with disputes and the flows of money are regulated. If you didn't get to vote directly on each of those then that's hardly a failing, it's what civil servants - appointed and overseen by democratically elected MEPs - are for.

Any significant trade deal we want to make with any other country will necessarily involve similar regulations. How could it not? 

As a consumer, you can buy goods and services from anywhere in the EU knowing that the quality of the product is controlled, and that it was manufactured in an environment where the rights of the workers were protected and the environment safeguarded. Buy stuff direct from China and none of those apply.

Same thing applies that I replied to PavelK: The preamble containing the words "ever closer union"  is from the Treaty of Rome, 1957 and thus predates the UK accession. Still the UK government banged on throughout about the EU being a free trade organization only. This was blatantly missing the point. From the very start, free trade was a means, not an aim.

This is something that the East Europeans don't appear to get, either. It is probably understandable from a historic perspective that these countries want to enjoy their new found national sovereignty to the max for a while, but then they should not have asked to join a project explicitly aimed at superseding national self interest. This aim was explicitly spelled out again in the Stuttgart declaration and the Lisbon treaties. To paint this as a secret agenda of the evil EU empire trying to screw poor nation states is pathetic.

In this respect, four decades of the UK getting away with cherry picking clearly set a bad example.

CB

I didn´t write they had similar goals but they declared them (peace, prosperity, equity etc.). It is a big difference

I think perhaps you haven't go the hang of this democracy thing quite yet. It's not just about voting - though of course we do vote for MEPs as well as our own governments - that's just one aspect.

There are other mechanisms and levers at play - pressure groups, campaigns, lobbyists, media pressure - all these are valid and legitimate ways in which 'democratic' countries udge their way forwards (and sometimes sideways, and sometimes backwards.) E.g. our own government is currently re-writing the rules on Universal Credit - that's not because we've had the opportunity to vote, but because the Government is responding to the general feeling , expressed in the media and by various pressure groups - that it needed changing.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but I am not aware that the EU has suppressed dissent or dissenting voices, or outlawed pressure groups, or hunted down members of the Green party, or outlawed political parties that don't agree with the either the detail or direction of travel. In fact, doesn't the EU constitutionally outlaw that kind of suppression? Rather different from your own experience before the fall of the Iron Curtain wouldn't you say? 

I don't think you'll find many references to peace, prosperity and equity in Mein Kampf.

Read a thread recently about quality of bolts and steel where someone was bemoaning disparate standards across USA and said that Europeans were particularly good at managing this.....hopefully we'll continue close standards after Brexit.

"I am firmly convinced of it; just as today we look back with a certain smile on the differences between the German states ... in fifty years there will be the generations to follow, with some amusement to look at the disputes that are currently taking place in Europe politically. The "dramatic conflicts of the nations" of many small European states will be seen as only family conflicts. I am convinced that in fifty years there will be no thinking only in (concepts) countries - many of today's problems will fade completely and many of them will not be there; there will be thinking in the (concepts) of the continents, and the European thinking will be fulfilled and perhaps stired it with much greater problems."*

J. Goebbels: Speech to Czech Journalists on September 11, 1940 in Berlin...

*my imperfect translation

It's hard to avoid being sarcastic, tbh, so I apologise in advance: when, exactly, did Goebbels become renowned for honesty and truth telling? Wasn't it in fact Goebbels that implemented the dictum that if you are going to tell a lie, make it a big one because it's more likely to be believed?

But on this occasion he was telling the truth (to representatives of a country that he had just invaded) and was welcoming them as equal partners in one large happy family? Hmm.

Actually, is there really so much to disagree with in this?  Goebbels said a lot of things that sounded very reasonable, that was his job - it's just that this vision of European unity wasn't at all what he really intended.

Napoleon wanted a united Europe as well.

The point is not whether the intentions are benign or not, it's whether you have much say in them.

Do you know for example, what legislation the EU plans yo introduce in the next three years and if so, do you feel you have had a say in it?

That's a fascinating perspective.

jk

The were "protecting" us...

I am not equating the EU and the Third Reich. I am only saying they use similar language as well as Habsburgs and Soviets did. Thanks to our historical experience and in spite of what CB writes we have some tendency (and right I belive) to be suspicious.

Neither did the Soviets. National governments did it for them.

The freedom of speech in EU is incomparably bigger then it was in Soviet empire - conclusively. Though it is under threat in some countries and the EU does nothing about it. When I listen to the  Eurocommissioner V?ra Jourová (the Czech!) I am afraid the censorship is on the way.

The money the EU spends on its promotion doesn´t help freedom fo speech too

Another reason why many EU Countries are more politically "balanced" is because they elect their governments on proportional representation systems which generally require successful parties to be more centrist and regularly result in coalition government. Decisions can take longer to achieve but once made tend to be more consensual and longer-lasting. 

This is magnified (both in the slowness of decision-making and the consensual nature of decisions once made) at an EU level where decisions have to achieve consensus amongst 28 countries, some with centre-right governments and some with centre-left governments.

In my view one of the many advantages of EU membership is the constraints it applies on the tendency for UK politics to be over-polarised. It's notable that it tends to be politicians at the extremes of UK politics who tend to be more pro-Brexit.

Martin

Seems a laudable aspiration really if it is achieved with consent at a manageable pace.

Just because the genocidal Nazis sought to unify (subjugate) Europe at gunpoint it does not logically follow that all following attempts at tighter European integration will be driven by the same motives and result in similar atrocity. The method and the motive both matter. The value in union membership is different for each country of course, shaped by their history, their economies and their geography, some things change, others don't so much.

jk

Is it hidden from you? No, it's all published on nice clear websites if you're interested. I don't get much say unfortunately because my region keeps electing wreckers, cretins and crooks to represent us but that isn't the EU's fault. Even if we didn't send useless sacks of offal to the parliament I'd never be much more than 1 voice in 500M unless I chose to get directly involved but I do have that choice I have yet to feel the need to exercise. I'm ok with that.

jk

It wasn't like that.  We could have taken a leadership role in the EU.  Our views were taken very seriously, we had a lot of influence at all levels in the commission and, despite our infuriatingly lukewarm attitude, we had friends who would have welcomed a more proactive involvement. 

I'd agree that the weak link is the European Parliament.  There is a degree of ambiguity about its relationship with the national bodies but I have to say that our attitude to it was pretty dismal.  The mechanism for selection of our candidates was poorly explained and unfamiliar.  Many of the candidates were, frankly, oddballs and second raters.  Our MPs and parties were, perhaps unsurprisingly, generally suspicious and unsupportive.  

We had a lot of say in rule making and could have had more.  Now we seem to have the choice of accepting EU rules with no say in drafting them, or accepting US rules with no chance of even influencing them.  

Ok. It's all our fault then.

I'm rather reminded of The Hitch hikers guide to the Galaxy where, on complaining to the Vogons that they are about to destroy our planet they tell us the plans had been available for some time at our local Galactic council offices and if we humans hadn't taken the trouble to check it was our problem, not theirs.

When you say "our views" you mean the views of our government.

You know, in most democracies groups of like minded people get together and form a party. They produce a manifesto and have a leader. People decide which group they want to run their affairs by voting for the manifesto and leader (probably) that they like best. I don't remember ever having voted for a European manifesto and I'm not sure who leads Europe. Whoever it is I do know I didn't vote for them.

In fact though I think we both agree that the Parliament is the weak point in EU democracy.

What is our fault, our failure as individuals to engage with the day to day workings of our democracy at a particular level? Yes, absolutely.

If like most you don't care then it just gets done for you, if you do care and you want to engage and have input then you need to work with the system. Ask your MEPs if their office produces a periodic newsletter or digest, sign up to their twitter feeds and social media (oh god the thought of following my MEP's makes me itch) and those of other MEPs, get involved if you feel excluded, don't just moan they don't routinely bombard you with information 99.99% of the population simply wouldn't read, understand or care about.

Out of curiosity, do you know what your town hall has planned for the next three years, or your regional assembly if you have one or Westminster?

jk

Yep.  Because that's how representative democracy works.  If you're saying that our recent governments, and the political parties we do vote for, have had no coherent policies on our relationship with the EU, I'd completely agree with you. 

Both main parties are now fundamentally split on European issues.  For decades the only way the Conservatives could deal with the EU was to mention it as little as possible.  Now we have the main opposition party with a leader who seems to have the same policy.   

I vote (or at least used to) in France for my MEP and at the last election several of the parties standing did make frequent reference to which of the parliamentary groupings they belonged to (so socialist, Green, etc) & it some cases they had manifestos at an EU scale. I imagine the English & Scottish Green party are allied with the Green group & Labour with the socialist group. Unfortunately for UK influence in the parliament, David Cameroon took the Tories out of the main centre-right group & joined with a group of fairly fringe  groups to the right of the main group.

If you don't know much about  the policies of those standing there is a problem somewhere

I agree that the power balance in the EU is shifted too far away from parliament and too much towards the commission (i.e. the civil service) and especially the council (the representatives of the member states).

However, usually the same people criticizing the EU parliament for not having enough power are the ones unwilling to grant it more power. 

I believe, though, that two major changes have improved the standing of the parliament, both in theory and in practise, demonstrating that the EU does evolve over time: The first is the slow move away from unanimous decisions and the introduction of qualified majorities (countries plus populations), which limits the power of the council.

The other is the recent move (first used at the last election) to have Europe wide candidates for the Presidency of the Commission from each of the various party blocks. I think that this in particular is an excellent idea, as it adds a "face" to the election, even though it is not quite formally correct, as in only a few voter can vote for this candidate directly it is established practise in national elections, where you also don't vote for the UK PM or German chancellor (the respective parliaments do).

For example, the website of the EPP candidate (the conservative/centrist block the Tories left to appease the ERG nutters even before the referendum) is here (the social democrats have not nominated their candidate yet):

https://en.manfredweber.eu

However, even this cannot compensate for voter apathy and tabloid scapegoating. 

CB

Yes, I don't think ever heard any reference in our Parliament to the Euro-party groupings and the party list proportional representation system used in the Euro-elections is totally unfamiliar to most people. 

Actually, I suspect the whole concept of large Euro-constituencies sending multiple MEPs, often from different parties, selected from a list, is rather unpopular in this country.  We're used to voting for a specific named candidate and ending up with an MP who is personally answerable to us, even if we didn't vote for them.  I'd prefer to be in a smaller Euro-constituency, electing a single MEP whose name I could remember without having to look it up.   

I think the current system probably works better in countries that routinely use PR of some sort and where coalition government is the norm.

I'll take the larger constituency in exchange for the proportional representation. If you want fringe views heard (as I do) then some compromise in the electoral system is necessary. It's not hard to find who your MEPs are and not much harder to figure out which would be best to approach with any given concern.

It works as well there as it does here, we just don't engage with the process or our representatives in part because our press has convinced us it's a sham facade and in part because we have sent so many useless 'representatives' whose objective is essentially non-participation in European level democracy.

jk

In Britain I'm represented by my MP, not a government.

And in Europe you are represented by the MEPs from your district. If some of these MEPS are only there for the expenses (and of course to make a political point similar to SF at Westminster) blame them, not the system.

CB

Yes but MEPs don't decide on the future of the EU, the Council of Ministers does as far as I understand it.

MEPs I believe approve legislation that is put before them by the commission I believe. I also know that they approve 98% of the legislation....

Maybe the Commission only promote legislation that they know is likely to meet with a general consensus.

Like Scotland ?

yes I think there's a lot in it. The wars still cast a long shadow as we saw recently on armistice day.

They are the source of much myth making about our national identity. It's about time we got over them really.

You understand wrong. Most legislation requires ratification by the parliament, which is why normally the commission will not propose anything it cannot expect to find a majority for. 

Standard continental style PR procedure, actually, but I appreciate that, if you are used to FPTP, it may look as if the parliament were merely rubber stamping the proposals.

The actual political process happened before, and still commission proposals are regularly defeated or amended in parliament. In fact, without googling I cannot think of any recent and major EU legislation or international treaty that passed the EU parliament unchanged. 

That the executive drives policy is true both for the EU and the UK

CB.

 (the social democrats have not nominated their candidate yet):

It is Frans Timmersmans, current vice president of the commission

But apparemtly only remainers are allowed to have them.

Lots of waffle in reply to this, when the answer is really simple: the referendum itself posed a binary question. In or out. Stay or go. Leave and remain are mutually exclusive and define themselves in opposition to one another. Jon Stewart utterly hilarious. England, which predominantly voted leave, has none of the atavistic nationalism of Scotland and Wales. Brazenly racist and nationalist parties rarely get elected to councils and never to Parliament. England an open, diverse and tolerant place and will remain so. 

The referendum was binary but the arguments for and against could be a bit more nuanced. 

Missed that, was travelling!

CB