- Jan 18, 2009
- 4,751
Feel like I'm back in sixth form
The political authority of the EU rests fundamentally upon the democratic mandate of its member states, who through referendum or through their democratically elected representatives agree to pool sovereignty on certain issues to the wider benefit of all members.
When was this proposition ever put the UK electorate? It never was, the closest we got was a promied referendum on the Lisbon Treaty (LT) by Labour in 2005, but we never got that. The LT was a re-hash of the EU Constitution which was rejected by the Dutch and French in referenda. Go figure.
It is derived through the the European Parliament, and the Council of Ministers. The Parliament is directly elected to represent EU citizens, while the Council of Ministers has a government minister from each country to establish EU law. They derive legitimacy from national elections. This is how it claims democratic legitimacy.
The Parliament is the least powerful arm of the EU. The power lies with the Commission, this is the law making are and executive, the people elected to this institution and its head (the most powerful man in the EU) are essentially elected by the Council which is a constituency of 28. This is a politburo, and how states like China "elect" its cabinet. Go figure.
No one has yet voted for Serbian or Moldovan accession. Serbia is an official candidate for membership. This is a good thing, less corrupt, more efficient political systems are good for the people of Moldova and ultimately good for the EU. It has hit a rocky road however. The EU keeps an eye on it though: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2016/02/15-fac-moldova-conclusions/. It does this as part of the European Neighbourhood and Eastern Partnership programme which helps post-Soviet countries undertake political reform and become fully functioning free-market democratic countries.
Why do I care about Moldova? The EU is now a collective of 28 states, why are the citizens not consulted on accession. The expansion of the EU has never been an issue any UK politicans put to the electorate, do you honestly think that if a UK politician regularly advocated the accession of Turkey to the EU he would gain popularity?
Forgive my copy paste but on Serbia: "Serbia officially applied for European Union membership on 22 December 2009,[6] and the European Commission recommended making it an official candidate on 12 October 2011. After the vote of the 27 EU foreign ministers on 28 February 2012, where with 26 votes for and 1 vote against, a candidate status recommendation was issued, and Serbia received full candidate status on 1 March. On 28 June 2013 the European Council endorsed the Council of Ministers conclusions and recommendations to open accession negotiations with Serbia.[7][8] In December 2013 the Council of the European Union approved opening negotiations on Serbia's accession in January 2014,[9] and the first Intergovernmental Conference was held on 21 January at the European Council in Brussels.[10]
See above.
So everyone supported opening the process with Serbia bar Romania.
Politicans should be answerable to their constituents.............no one cares about Serbia, Albania and Moldova; ther eis no benefit for the UK, it is merely another 10m or so people who can waltz into the UK.
You might be surprised to hear that the UK has traditionally supported the expansion of the EU eastwards
This is true, but it was never put to the UK that theu would be swamped with eastern european migrants. When Labour signed off on the expansion, they said only 15,000 would come...........I know laughable isnt it?
"In 2002, Tory MEP Roger Helmer, who went on to defect to Ukip, put it like this: "Tory policy on enlargement is clear. We are in favour of it, for three reasons. First, we owe a moral debt to the countries of central and eastern Europe, which were allowed to fall under the pall of communism after the second world war. Second, by entrenching democracy and the rule of law in eastern Europe, we ensure stability and security for the future. Third, an extra hundred million people in our single market may be a short-term liability, but long term will contribute to growth and prosperity."" http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/21/tories-conservatives-eu-enlargement-bulgaria
See above.
This argument has fallen out of favour with some Tories, and a large part of the country (though I don't think DC or GO) but it does answer why the accession of poor countries is in our interest. Entrenching democracy and the rule of law in the Balkans or Eastern Europe is a good thing - stability and security. Bigger single market = bigger economy, this hopefully generates growth. So there is political and economic reasons to support accession. Here is answer that involves democracy!
Its not working, these countries are being hollowed out. The reality now is UK payers pay money to subsidise poorly paid eastern europeans workers here and their kids in eastern europe........this is a disgrace.
Russia has a proud and noble tradition of space exploration and has a lot of expertise, collaboration is great.
We have sanctions on Russia because of the EU, this is creating problems in the EU, so why is space exploraton an exception?
