Here’s the thing: the UK needs trade agreements in order to thrive. The EU may be only minimally democratic, but the fact that the people get a say at all in the terms of that set of trade agreements is considerably better than the day we’d get in any other trade agreement. Especially given that we would be the minor partner an any trade agreement we made with powerful partners: we’d be letting the USA, for example, dictate to our government. If we ever do an agreement with the USA, you can bet that it would come with rules about generic drugs, and allowing them to buy up our schools, hospitals and prisons – and the people would get no say at all.
Meanwhile the EU, for all its faults, has rules based around human rights, environmental protection, animal welfare and mutual prosperity. Not only that: being out of the EU has cost us 5% growth per annum. Our exposure to global catastrophes has been worse, and our recoveries slower, than other EU countries and comparable economies. Our labour market is a mess, our exporters are inundated with paperwork, and our governments, without the leavening influence of the “undemocratic” EU, have been more corrupt, more cruel and less respectful of human rights.
Tweak@feddit.uk 3 months ago
You do realise that the entire structure of the EU was primarily dreamt up by British legal experts? It’s quite literally one of the best, most robust and most competent systems of governance in the world.
Yes, Parliament can’t introduce legislation by themselves, but that’s because we don’t want populists like Farage, Boris or Trump to do that. They’re charismatic, but not actually competent. That’s why talented legal experts in the European Commission (who are each appointed by elected governments of member states, the UK had 6 iirc), people who actually know how law works, write the laws. The elected MEP’s vote on the laws.
However even here we’re missing the fact that the European Parliament (EP) do have a say in the legislation. The EC writes an “Impact Assessment” with rough draft of the law they’re thinking of writing (which anyone can comment on), then this is presented before Parliament who propose and discuss amendments. So it’s completely disingenuous to imply that the elected EP is somehow beholden to the “unelected” (but chosen for competency by elected member governments) EC bureaucrats.
And all that skips around what starts the EC’s initial proposal. Aside from occassionally writing laws off their own backs, the EC responds to requests from:
That’s right, not only can Parliament demand new legislation (they just have to get the big boy lawyers to write it for them), but individual citizens can directly!
Parliament has the final say in whether or not legislation is implemented. That’s completely democratic. What you call “an affront” is actually competent people writing effective legislation. Rather than bullshit like the Rwanda deal which states the UK will accept vulnerable refugees from Rwanda in exchange for the small boat migrants to Rwanda (all paid for by the UK taxpayer), or the general ineptitude of no legislation at all and a Hard Brexit causing issues like sewage being dumped in our rivers since water companies now face restrictions on importing treatment chemicals from the EU.
rah@feddit.uk 3 months ago
LOL
As I undsrstand it, the Parliament does not have the power to compel the Commission to introduce legislation. The Parliament can make requests (not “demands”) but the Commission has the power to say “no” to those requests. This is critical.