eurealist.co.uk

In short democratic legitimacy of the EU is non existent, none of the peoples of the nation states have ever voted for the creation of the European Project, it was created as a top down political structure where national politicians could exchange ideas and explore ways of working together for the betterment of all. But the decisions they made were never formally put to the people as an alternative form of government.

Occasionally one member states national politicians will allow or will be forced to allow the citizens of that state a small voice in the proceedings, but as we have witnessed so many times already the people are expected to vote yes and are simply not allowed to say no to the ongoing political unification, and the passing of powers of the nation state to a supra national level forum which is beyond the control of the people.

We can see the effects of this reflected in the recent news that Peter Mandelson the EU Commissioner for trade is putting a 60% reduction of farmer subsidies on the table at the WTO talks.
Which of us have given the EU the authority to make such an offer, in fact which of us gave the EU the authority to create and control such farm subsidies in the first place, when did EU farm subsidies ever feature in a national election or even in an election to the EU parliament. Of course they did not, because the politicians have by agreements between themselves removed such questions from the national debate and beyond democratic control.

So when Mr Mandelson has made his agreements and commitments in the WTO there will be no opportunity for us the people to gainsay those commitments no opportunity to say sorry we do not agree you must go back and renegotiate a different deal. This will be a deal amongst politicians about what they are going to force on the people they are supposed to represent.

For that matter when did we ever vote to become a member of the World Trade Organisation and give our authority to our government to make deals in that forum which impact on our own national well being?

The nation-state has a certain definiteness categorized by indivisible sovereignty,fixed boundaries, clear personality, established government, and constant democracy.

Because the sovereignty is indivisible it cannot be shared as the EU clique would have us believe, it is rather transferred to a different forum. We cannot decide to both share sovereignty and also retain it, once we agree to make our sovereignty conditional on agreements in the EU we obviously cannot still retain the independent expression of sovereignty. Sovereignty means we can say to Mr Mandelson, agree what you will, but we will continue to subsidies our farmers so they can continue to supply our food at a reasonable costs to the consumer, because as a nation state we demand that the ability to feed ourselves remains at all time within the power of the nation state.

Within the EU our democracy has thus become fragmented, we can still vote for Labour, Conservative or LibDem but we cannot vote to control the EU or the policies it decides to pursue, because they are no longer part of the national political debate. Only those parties which advocate leaving the EU can and do have distinct national policies on a whole raft of areas that are now EU controlled. But these are the smaller parties that have in reality no chance of forming a government or influencing policy.

As it stands we hold our own governments responsible of policies to which they are not fully responsible, over which they may have little control, and to which they may not even be politically committed. We also elect them to control policies that are beyond their control, the democratic deficit of the EU has been transferred to become a democratic deficit within the nation state. Whereas national governments do engage in debates on EU level policies there is no correlation between those debates and the national public debate which would contribute to authorising national politicians to agree to EU policy. Rather such policies are agreed by a select few in the cabinet and then forced on an excluded population.

There is also the central EU the Commission that feels it has the authority to dispense as it wishes, even if it does not have the backing of the member states governments. The announcement that $1.6 billion in uncollected farm subsidies should, instead of being returned to the nation states, be given to farmers in the developing world. On whose behalf are the EU working, certainly not the member states or their citizens they are so totally divorced from any democratic control that some ideas seem to simply materialise out of thin air and becomes EU policy that impacts on all of us but are designed to enhance the EU stature on the world stage. The only way of preventing this particular episode is if the nation states get together and take the Commission to court for overstepping its authority, and of course the court in question has a duty of “full mutual co-operation” with the Commission.

In the EU, political participation ‘by the people’ and representation of the people’ has generally been replaced with an EU claim of effective governance ‘for the people, ie. in the peoples interest, the EU claims a democratic authority because it adds benefit.

So the question needs to be asked does it really add benefit to the peoples lives?

On that front the EU is also struggling to offer any substantial proof that it does. The very cost to Britain of membership is calculated to add 5 pence in the pound to our taxes, do we get added benefit that compares to that, is our food cheaper because of membership, do we pay less for our energy? I do not think so, in fact just the opposite the EU adds to the cost of food production and is adding substantially to the costs of our energy bills.

It might be considered a benefit to subsidies farmers to produce food, if it is then how can it suddenly be decided that a 60% cut in those subsidies will also be a benefit, and were we not subsidising our British farmers in any case, how can it be a benefit for the level and the recipients of the subsidy being in the control of the EU and not our national government. And where is the added protection of size and greater negotiation power of the EU when those subsidies must be reduced by 60% to get a deal, could we not have done equally as well individually.

It might be a benefit to insist that 20% electricity should be produced from renewable energy sources, but as Booker points out the implementation of this policy is going to be a very costly white elephant forcing up the price of our electricity bills for several years to come and will mean that we will have to cut consumption to meet the targets.

How is it a benefit to be prevented from disposing of refuse by the traditional landfill methods when the system is in equilibrium and be forced to build costly incinerators?

In this as in so many other areas the perceived benefit of EU membership is negated by the costs involved in policies that have far more to do with a central EU socialist ethos than it does for any added benefit for the people. The EU instead of adding benefit to our lives is adding greatly to he costs both monetarily and legally with a seemingly endless flood of EU legislation.