(Original post by L i b)
Nope, that's nationalism. Completely different and, indeed, conflicting ideology.
Its power is weaker than the House of Commons due to the nationalism you advocate.
Well, the UK is part of the EU. I certainly don't equate nationalism with 'freedom' - quite the opposite, actually; I think bringing identity politics further into our system of governments is a very dangerous and illiberal precedent.
Some of them are - many are drawn from the House of Lords. Either way, I don't think being able to find a small constituency that will elect you is particularly good at giving political legitimacy: the support of Parliament is sufficient.
Well, like I say, we don't seem to mind about the Speakers of the Houses of Parliament, the Lord President of the Privy Council or so forth - and their roles are more analogous to these European Union presidents than the role of President of the United States is. You're simply exploiting the fact that the positions share a name.
You can call it nationalism. I can call it democracy. Whatever the word, I believe that laws/legislation/policies/etc should be in the interest of citizens of Britain.
The European parliament may be weaker because there are many other powerful bodies in the EU. But if you compare the EU as a whole to the British political system, I still believe the EU as a whole holds too much power.
What do you mean by identity politics? It isn't about identity in the sense of ethnicity or anything, but just that we as a country have rights to decide for ourselves; which is also why I call it freedom. How can we just throw those rights of our country away? The point of WW2 was to keep this state free from any forces in Europe, and not the other way round.
You may say that David Cameron shouldn't be the PM because he was elected from a constituency with only 78,000 people. But that is where party leadership elections come in, which is nationwide for all members. But even in the general election, people knew which MP and party they were voting for, which meant they knew which leader they were voting for, as well as that leader's potential cabinet.
The President of European Council, Rompuy, has more than just the title of 'president'. He actually represents us on the world stage. You see him at the G8 meetings and tons of other meetings. If he is going to have that much power, then we should have a say.
(Original post by HJV)
These two parts of your post are in direct contradiction of each other.
Make up your mind. Either you want the EU's institutions be more democratic and more accountable to the population or
you want a higher degree of control from the member states' governments. You can't have your cake and eat it. You can't both increase the powers of the Parliament (the democratic institution) and
increase the powers of the Council (the intergovernmental institution where your sovereign states come together).
At the moment it's very much a compromise where both the Parliament and the Council need to agree for an act to be passed (ie. the ordinary legislative procedure, which applies to most areas).
When I say they are undemocratic, I mean so in two senses. In that many bodies aren't elected, and also in the sense that the EU doesn't represent the will of the people in the UK and our wishes. Yes, the EU could become more democratic in the elected sense, but I would still be against it. Either way, the EU has become way too powerful over the years. I believe in member states rights, and that is the reason why I am mainly anti-EU. Member states have the right to stay in the EU if they wish. So I'm not saying the EU should be completely abolished. But with the UK, most people want to get out. If the huge majority want to get out, then there should be a referendum on it. The Green Party leader loves the EU, but she supports a referendum as most people in the UK want one. Now, that is democracy.