Black_Flag_11 wrote:
chetan_rao wrote:
- And finally (this may have been answered by the answers to the other two) would a Norway style deal basically be the equivalent of staying in the EU but without having a say in the rules? EU isn't really governed entirely by elected representatives, that's exactly why 'not having a say in the rules' was one of the key factors in the Leave campaign. That being said, Britain will definitely have a disadvantage by not having a seat at tables where collective decisions are made affecting EU members, because their relationships with EU members will be entirely economic, not administrative.
Thanks both of you for the answers, pretty much as I understood it when I read about it.
One point I wanted to query was the above.
I'm aware that the commission isn't directly elected. My understanding is that the president is elected by MEPs (who we do elect) and then the other 27 members are chosen by the president and the heads of state.
However it was my understanding that the MEPs have to vote on any of the laws put forward by the commission (?). So while it's accurate to say it's not entirely democratic, it's a bit far to say that we don't get a say. Or rather, those that we elect don't get a say.
Yes, it is a stretch to claim members have no say in legislation governing the EU, but politicians aren't alien to stretching the truth if it suits them, are they?
That being said, EU is an undeniably complex organisation, both in its component parts and distribution of powers/responsibilities. While I would recommend at least a cursory reading of how the whole organisation and its SEVEN constituent institutions work for better understanding, here's a very relevant quote from the EU Wikipedia entry:
Quote:
The Commission was set up from the start to act as an independent supranational authority separate from governments; it has been described as "the only body paid to think European". The members are proposed by their member state governments, one from each. However, they are bound to act independently – neutral from other influences such as those governments which appointed them. This is in contrast to the Council, which represents governments, the Parliament, which represents citizens, the Economic and Social Committee, which represents organised civil society, and the Committee of the Regions, which represents local and regional authorities.
As is evident even from the limited quote above, it's not a straightforward case of 'we'll send representatives and they'll take care of our interests'. Bringing such a diverse group of nations and people under a single umbrella means some compromises are inevitable for the greater good. What Britain (at least a slight majority) seems to have done is NOT weigh all pros & cons rationally before jumping to conclusions. While this may still work out for the best eventually, it's pretty obvious that the recent referendum was more a blind leap of misguided faith than a well-calculated move.