|
|
Does membership of the European Union pose a significant threat to British democracy? “Many years after Britain joined the community in 1973. We still have our Queen, we continue to eat sliced bread, warm beer, our police are unarmed, we drive on the left of the road, we are not forced to carry identity cards, we vote on Thursdays, milk is delivered in pines to our doorsteps, which is threatened, not by Brussels, but because we drink less every year and because British dairies have chosen to sell milk through supermarkets. Our public houses are opened d at the restricted times that we have chosen, we have our own civil and criminal law, we have Greenwich Mean Time, we play cricket and snooker, the pop has not interfered with our national churches, imported animals are subject to quarantine to keep out rabies, and so on.” (Dunn,1985; p.63) This essay will firstly analyze the system within which European Union works; it will look at the different institutions role, for example the Council of Ministers, the European Commission, European Parliament, … in contrast of this, it will look at Britain’s main decision-making institutions, for example House of Commons, the British Parliament, etc…I will look at both pro and anti EU views. Following the institutions’ analysis, I will try to see in what ways does the European Union pose a significant threat to the British democracy. Thirdly, I will talk about the democracy within the European Union, and how far Britain has been advanced by joining the European Union. To conclude, I would summarize Britain’s democratic control and will answer whether or not European Union membership has threatened British democracy. Democratic control of decisions made in the European Community. There are two executive bodies in the Community to take the decisions and to carry out them out. They are the Council of Ministers and the Commission. Both hold their meetings in secret. Neither is fully accountable to the public for their decisions. The commission is run by “Commissioners” who are simultaneously appointed every four years by the heads of each national governments. The public has no way to express its views about the choice of the Commissioners. Even their elected representatives in the national parliament cannot alter the appointments, which are the gift or party leaders. Not can the public vote directly for the appointment of a Commissioner as the American public can when it elects a President. However the Commission, as a body, is sensitive to these criticisms. It makes a deliberate effort to consult and to listen to the elected European Parliament although it has the right (from the treaty of Rome) to ignore the Parliament’s views. The European Parliament has the formal power to vote to dismiss all the Commissioners together. It does not yet have a formal power to approve their appointment, although in 1985 it took upon itself to vote approval of them in any case. (Labour Party, p.62) As for the council of Ministers, according to the British view is a far more serious problem. It meets in secret. Neither the press, nor the public, nor members of the European Parliament can attend its meetings. In their secret meetings the national ministers or their civil servants habitually abuse the confidence of the public by awarding secret vetoes to each other.
|
