If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Europe - Enlargement
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
ok Europe is to expand by 12 member states by 2004. Including, the Czechs, Hungary, the ex 'satalite states' etc and ofcourse Cyprus. I wonder if anyone has any opinions on this.
What do you think of enlargement, assuming we are heading into further and unavoidable integration, how would you like to see Europe be governed.
I have issues with the MEP's opinions forming merely a consultative role and having no real bite.
but on enlargement, i think advantages and disadvantages for the UK I can see are:
Increased trade and market. (but offset with wage competition)
not happy with Eastern boarder controls starting at Cyprus, and Estonia etc.
Human Rights criteria for entry should buck the ideas up on the part of Cyprus. This for me is the main bite of the EU.. its a guarentee of certain standards. We might be culturally miles apart and all the rest.
I'm no Europe guru, but enlargement begs the question what's in it for us.
alex
What do you think of enlargement, assuming we are heading into further and unavoidable integration, how would you like to see Europe be governed.
I have issues with the MEP's opinions forming merely a consultative role and having no real bite.
but on enlargement, i think advantages and disadvantages for the UK I can see are:
Increased trade and market. (but offset with wage competition)
not happy with Eastern boarder controls starting at Cyprus, and Estonia etc.
Human Rights criteria for entry should buck the ideas up on the part of Cyprus. This for me is the main bite of the EU.. its a guarentee of certain standards. We might be culturally miles apart and all the rest.
I'm no Europe guru, but enlargement begs the question what's in it for us.
alex
0
Comments
There is a case for a reform of the European institutions to enhance 'the voice of the people' but I also beleiev that the influence of the European institutions in politics is far over played (by the Mail, S*n etc)
Actually this is also not the case and has not been the case since 1993-94 with the introduction of "Co-decision" powers (Art. 189b) in the Maastricht Treaty.
A little research into how the institutions actually function and how decisions are reached at the EU level is advisable.
It is actually a highly democratic process, the problem is the widespread misinformation of the general electorate in the UK and the general lack of enthusiasm in gaining a better understanding of the EU and, its powers and its procedures.
Much easier, apparently, for most to just fall in line with the bogus Euro-myths and scare stories.
i'll bet it all falls apart and the eu actualy shrinks in order to survive and prosper.
maybe it'll go underground maan.. back to its roots
Regardless I think i prefer an intergovermantalist approach.
Thats the trouble...the EU started off as intergovernmental NOT supranational, and if its intergovernmental to whine about the "democratic deficit" is stupid- if its intergovernmental, its got no more special rights than, say, NATO.
Clandestine, the EU is not democratic, and it probnably wont be for another ten years. Its getting better, but ultimate power still rests with the Council, not with Parliament- Parliament has a say, but it can only vote on what is put before it. The legislature of the EU is not democratic, and given the nature of Article 234 EC that concerns me greatly.
Give it time is all I say though.
kermit 234 rullings are essentially judicial guidelines on interperatation of eu law right? there is no technical obligation on a court to impose the outcome on their decision. in what way does the nature of an aid to interperatation concern you?
the ecj is one judge from each state - appointed by our bods.
what would you propose by way of improvement in the legislature?
Sorry to say, the EU is as democratic as any of its member states national government structures, and actually significantly smaller than most.
The Commission is essentially akin in its operative mandate to that of White Hall, yet do you scream and rant that Whit Hall (with something on the order of 3 times the budgetary resources and staff) makes the UK establishment "undemocratic"?
Article 189b is not something minor in operation. It ensures that all EU directives related to the "accursed" and much maligned harmonisations of member states policies and practices carry with them the right of EU parliamentary veto in all cases where the will of the people as represented by their MEPs is disregarded in one or another or both of the 2 readings to which EVERY directive and regulation is subjected.
Now, for example, I would argue indeed that there is a glaring slip between cup and lip when it comes to those who have moved from the EU political sphere back to the national arena.
Take Geoff Hoon for instance. I knew him personally whilst he was an MEP and he was constantly back in his UK constitutency endeavouring to overcome the glaring misinformation put out by the average UK press. Yet Geoff Hoon the UK Minister of Defence has been increasingly concerned more with protecting the image and interests of #10 than championing the democratic will of the British people.
Just a small yet glaring indication of where the democratic deficit truly resides, from my experience.
The Commission creates EU law, therefore there is no democracy involved in the law that is directly applicable to us- direct effect means the law still stsnds even if the member state doesnt act upon it.
Clandestine, its not as simple as the direct correlation as to Whitehall. The Civil Service doesnt technically create law, the ministers do- and ministers, whilst not being directly elected, are semi-elected. They are acting MPs (with the exception of the Lord Chancellor), and they, as a collective, can be voted out every ficve years iof the electorate deems it necessary.
The Commission has only recently become appointed by Parliament and not by the President. Its getting there, but its nowhere near there yet.
Im actually quite a big supporter of the EU, its just that the democratic deficit, whilst overstated, is still a very real problem. One that the EU cannot afford to ignore.
Because of the Human Rights issue or another reason? just curious
Personally Im sceptical about the Human Rights issue- Turkey did, after all, join the ECHR. Granted, theyre always in the dock there, but we are too because of Northern Ireland.
I think the issue is that Turkey is not a European country- it is Asiatic. Apart from Istanbul Turkey is in Asia, and the capital Ankara is deeply Asiatic. It shouldnt be in Europe for this very reason.
And I could be wrong but Turkey would be the only country in the EU where the death penalty still exists (other than the high treason in times of war blah blah) and that would be simply not acceptable.
having said that though all European nations are happy to ally, sign treaties with and generally cosy up to the US, China, Russia etc.....