[tcldr]

That's exactly the line most of the press seem to tout – and it's that 'feeling' which has been exploited by those who see the EU as an obstacle to their regulatory goals or vision.

The fact is that you get to vote for your MEP if you choose to, and they in turn for the commission. It's weird that on the one hand people say the EU "[does] whatever they please and there is no real input from anyone" and on the other have no idea about the EU parliamentary process. It is what you make it.

The EU isn't perfect, but I'm always surprised by those in EU countries who think that it would be in their long-term interests to forge a path alone in a bi-polar geopolitical sphere dominated by the US and China, rather than club together with their EU neighbours and have a voice on the world stage.

[auganov]

> and on the other have no idea about the EU parliamentary process. It is what you make it.

Yes. But the problem is people have a very hard time doing that. You cannot engage with EU level politics the same way you can in a real country. All these people speak different languages. Very hard to stay engaged when you have to listen to translations. You hardly ever get the kind of engaging coverage you would for domestic politics.

I know most of the politicians and parties in my country. I would easily recognize and have some opinion about most prominent congresspeople and senators in the US. Same goes for knesset members. Yet off top of my head I couldn't name you 10 EU MEPs. I know names of the biggest parties in the EU parliament but I couldn't tell you much about them.

Unless EU actually tries to establish a common culture and a common language, I don't see much changing.

[Spearchucker]

My boy goes to a European School (schools set up for employees of the Union), because my girlfriend works for a European institution. I sit on the parents association of the school. That said -

There already is a common language and it's English. It may not be officially recognized but it's what everybody working for an EU institution uses.

Not knowing any MEPs by name is your choice and not a deficiency of the EU.

[auganov]

Watch any EU parliament video and count how many people speak English.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=io8aRZUFCxE

Even the speaker of the house doesn't. President of the EU commission starts off in her language, briefly reads some English off a piece of paper and then switches back. Maybe 1 in 3 or 4 MEPs speak some English. It's very hard to watch. And mind you, in most EU countries regular people would have trouble following the English translation too, they'd need to find one in their language.

I'm not questioning what you said about those working in EU institutions, I'm sure that's true. But that's irrelevant, that's not what drives politics.

[johnzim]

The MEPs only get to vote on candidates selected by the council of ministers - there's a means to provide their own candidate if they don't ratify that decision but in reality, the commission is for politicians who missed out on elections in their member state.

[Zenst]

Some member countries got to vote in the last and one before MEP elections for candidates that did not represent the ruling group that runs the EU.

Bit like say New York voting for Mr Happy as President and the country all votes for Mr Sad who has candidates in every state apart from New York. Now in that instance the people of New York's democratic say be kinda futile say in who runs the country as they had no chance. THAT is exactly how MEP voting choice was in some EU member countries that didn't have any EPP representation, say or choice and not a single EPP MEP voted for and yet it is the EPP that runs the EU.

Yes the EU isn't perfect but when they can't even sort out their own accounts and get them signed off year upon year, that's not a good sign of leadership or credibility. Heck even they admit they need to reform, which is sad as they didn't admit that until after the whole UK interdependence vote and that vote only came about as the UK leadership went to the EU for reforms and got palmed off with some tokens. Ironically had the EU even bothered to do any attempt at reform before the UK left, the UK could of tabled another vote as things would of changed and sadly the EU didn't do that and more so France been insistent that any reforms do not happen until the UK has left.

Remember that the EU was a trade agreement that people voted to join, what it became is something the people had no direct say in at all and that was the root of much divide that has grown over the past few decades. Me I do feel it is in the best interest of the EU and the UK to divorce as the UK has held the EU back upon many votes and looking at the voting history shows this and the EU could of had better financial regulations decades ago, regulations needed to work with the EURO financial model and that has not been good for the Euro.

No tabloid or other such outlet was used to form this opinion, other opinions may vary.

[M2Ys4U]

> Some member countries got to vote in the last and one before MEP elections for candidates that did not represent the ruling group that runs the EU.

That's equally applicable at the national level too

>THAT is exactly how MEP voting choice was in some EU member countries that didn't have any EPP representation, say or choice and not a single EPP MEP voted for and yet it is the EPP that runs the EU.

The President of the European Commission may be an EPP member, but the college as a whole is pretty representative of the party make-up of the Parliament as a whole:

Party-Group / Commission / Parliament

EPP-EPP / 37% / 24%

PES-S&D / 33% / 21%

ALDE-RE / 19% / 14%

Ind-NI / 7% / 14%

ECR-ECR / 4% / 8%

>Yes the EU isn't perfect but when they can't even sort out their own accounts and get them signed off year upon year, that's not a good sign of leadership or credibility.

That's not true, you are repeating disinformation.

EU accounts have been signed off with a clean opinion every year since 2007.

> Heck even they admit they need to reform

So? Integrating an entire continent - and doing it right - takes time and needs to be done in an incremental fashion.

> which is sad as they didn't admit that until after the whole UK interdependence vote

Again, that is not true. Nobody thought that as soon as the Lisbon Treaty came in to force that the job was done.

>and that vote only came about as the UK leadership went to the EU for reforms and got palmed off with some tokens.

Once more - that is simply not true.

The UK didn't go to the EU with reforms, the UK went to the EU with a set of demands for special treatment. Demands that, in part, would undermine the single market.

> Ironically had the EU even bothered to do any attempt at reform before the UK left, the UK could of tabled another vote as things would of changed

Can you guess what I'm about to say? Yup, that is not true.

The people championing brexit (and by that I mean the politicians and notorious business people like Dyson and Martin) didn't give a shit about "reform". They wanted out and they were damned well going to get out by hook or by crook.

Do you really think the likes of the ERG would ever have countenanced a second vote?

>Remember that the EU was a trade agreement that people voted to join

ARRRGH. No. No it wasn't.

The EU has always, always, been a political project to integrate Europe.

Don't believe me? Let me quote a landmark case from the Court of Justice from 1963:

"The Community constitutes a new legal order of international law for the benefit of which the states have limited their sovereign rights, albeit within limited fields and the subjects of which comprise not only member states but also their nationals. Independently of the legislation of member states, Community law therefore not only imposes obligations on individuals but is also intended to confer upon them rights which become part of their legal heritage. These rights arise not only where they are expressly granted by the treaty, but also by reason of obligations which the treaty imposes in a clearly defined way upon individuals as well as upon the member states and upon the institutions of the Community."

Does that sound like it's talking about a mere trade agreement?

And bare in mind that the UK, Denmark, Ireland, Greece, Portugal, Spain, Austria, Cypress, Malta, Sweden, Finland, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Slovenia and Croatia all applied to join, and then did join, after that judgment was given.

That's 21 of the current 27 member states, plus the UK.

> what it became is something the people had no direct say in at all

Every member state has to agree to treaty changes. People could have voted for governments that would say no to those changes. Many member states usually have referendums - the proposed constitution was vetoed by referendums. Ireland extracted concessions by rejecting the Lisbon Treaty the first time around.

[Zenst]

> EU accounts have been signed off with a clean opinion every year since 2007.

Whilst the debate about how accounts with errors could be signed off, the matter probably best covered here:

https://fullfact.org/europe/did-auditors-sign-eu-budget/

> That's equally applicable at the national level too

Very true and politics as it stands needs an overall to align with modern times as akin to electing one tool to handle all issues for 4-5 years is never an ideal solution as anybody who uses tools can attest. A more granular say in things is needed and whilst we are stuck with a limited choice selection of inputs we can only put an X every 4-5 years, politics will always drift from public opinion however initially the party was elected.

>Do you really think the likes of the ERG would ever have countenanced a second vote?

Point I was making is that had there been something that irrespective of how it effected the UK seen to change within the EU then politically there would of been a fair reason to put the brexit vote back to the people as what they had voted upon had changed and would of been a valid reason to enable that. Sure both sides had their rhetoric charismatics but the crux was without that change it would of been seen as a repeat vote, if something in the EU had changed then that would be totally different and even Tusk at the time as did many EU politician state that the EU needed some reforms. That is a matter they don't disagree upon, yet Macron has made it clear that any such reforms do not happen until the UK has left the EU. Which I can equally respect, but equally lament.

> ARRRGH. No. No it wasn't.

The UK people had a say to join the ECC

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

The first say they had in any EU aspect (including Maastricht) political as a direct question was Brexit. Yes many other members took many changes from the ECC to the EU today too the people for a vote and whilst much of that was mooted for votes upon Maastricht and the like and even EU membership (Liberal Democrats was keen upon that until they got a result of leave). Sure you can say people voted for parties that made promises of votes, sadly such things got left so long for what result, the children of the parents who voted to join the ECC for the sake of the children, those children growing up and predominantly voting to leave the EU (which the ECC became).

So we shall agree to disagree upon that. As whilst the EU has always been political, in this instance the only say the people had upon membership of the EU was to say no, they said yes to the ECC in which the EU evolved into with the people being given no direct say and that may also of made a huge difference.

Crux is as far as the EU goes, most UK not really embraced it's direction and kinda seen the UK become that disgruntled employee that takes loads of sick days and causes disruption for the rest of the class and voting history of the UK and it's influence of vote upon others to play sheep and follow has seen many an EU initiative stymied by the UK's veto. Personally I do believe that had the EU had financial regulation changes they wanted without the UK blocking to protect it's own interest (which was fair and right for the UK), then you see initiatives the majority wants and needs blocked by a single member. Now that's EU democracy at work and general right, but without the closer integration of currency et all the initiative has tried to build upon foundations that are not as robust as could be. That and the impact upon the Euro and the amount of QE to keep the Euro competitive for exports as well as imports makes for a financial juggle that has seen much unfairness. After all Euro countries locked in at time of joining, so if they played up their status to join then they are locked at a level at which technically they are below and vice versa. So if Italy or Greece made out things better than was when joining then down the line the impact would see a huge negative impact, equally if say Germany played down it's finances when it joined, then it would see a better return with that lock-in. Of course that is all over simplified and the whole matter is very complex in the details, but the crux is - the EU better of without the UK and since UK been locked out of EU votes, seen financial changes move forward. Whilst the UK not the only country with protected interests that has held many things back, financial services has been one that is cornerstone for the EU's unity.

So yeah, the UK people voted to join a trade agreement and first say upon the political project of the EU and they said no and it all could of been avoided. In that time the whole things best summed up by UK comedy of old: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37iHSwA1SwE

> Every member state has to agree to treaty changes. People could have voted for governments that would say no to those changes. Many member states usually have referendums - the proposed constitution was vetoed by referendums. Ireland extracted concessions by rejecting the Lisbon Treaty the first time around.

Yes, but not all those member countries took any of those voted to the people as a referendum and many who did, reran those referendums seeing a change in outcome to say yes. The UK had no such referendums and that is a source of much lament and a product of failings of all UK political parties to various degree's as they all had the opportunity.

One flaw in the EU that they do need to fix is how large corporations can abuse country tax laws and by that use the single market to pick the cheapest member tax liability wise and funnel sales via them to negate local country tax they would of paid had they paid all taxes locally. So can expect in a year or so for Amazon, Google, Apple et all to not have the headline how they only paid a few pennies on the pound tax wise as they will no longer be legally able to use the single market quirks to their advantage tax wise. So there is that, and a source of unfairness that the EU really needs to fix. Though when they had Junker as president who was probably one of the most knowledgeable people upon such issues, nothing changed. I say one of the most knowledgeable as he did set-up the Luxenbourg ones many a large corporation enjoy. Indeed the Guardian feels he was unhelpful upon such issues: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jan/01/jean-claude...

But however you look at it, if you had a company and one employee that caused most of the chaos and issues and their heart wasn't in the job, would you not let them go in the interests of the company and rest of the employee's?

Either way, the EU has an opportunity to address it's unity and I hope it does or be more referendums down the line and that can all be avoided.