John Harris (In or out, England’s disquiet is set to get a whole lot worse, 27 May) identifies a fault line in British politics that also cuts through the EU debate: the centralisation of power. The UK is the most centralised country in Europe, behind even its smaller neighbours like Belgium, Austria and Spain. Despite recent promises of regional devolution, citizens feel increasingly shut out of decision making at all levels – from local government to European-wide institutions. Antipathy towards the EU, as with politics in its broadest sense, is symptomatic of this sense of powerlessness. The growing distance between the governors and the governed might move voters simply to get rid of one layer of the political elite, if given the chance.
But the recognition that power is concentrated in the hands of a few is not confined to leavers. It is revealing that, when challenged on the EU’s democratic deficit, remainers deflect the criticism by pointing to Westminster and our own concentration of power. This is not an adequate response and the EU must take democratic reform seriously. But England’s own political alienation suggests that we might not feel as hostile to the European project if our domestic democracy were in better shape. To solve problems abroad, democracy must begin at home. It is a basic tenet of democracy that power should remain as close as possible to the people. This principle of subsidiarity may yet prove a remedy for both European and English disquiet.
Frances Foley
University of Birmingham
• There is much truth in what Irvine Welsh says (However we vote, the elites will win this referendum, 30 May). But despite this I am convinced there is a more optimistic and radical choice that we can make right now. That is to vote remain, but with the firm intention that if we win (or even if we don’t), we will make an alliance with other progressive groups across Europe and fight for a more democratic and transparent EU.
This policy was given a positive airing last Saturday when the Democracy in Europe Movement (DiEM25) and Another Europe is Possible held a joint conference at the Institute of Education in London, attracting more than 1,000 people. Key speakers were Yanis Varoufakis (former Greek finance minister), Caroline Lucas and John McDonnell. But this wasn’t just about speakers; the whole conference was interactive, and directed at strategies for campaigning before and after the referendum. I left feeling energised and enthusiastic – not a normal reaction, at least for me, after meetings on the referendum.
Catherine Hoskyns
London
• As far as I was aware, the European commission – criticised by Irvine Welsh, along with many other contributors, as meaning we are “stuck with an unelected commission-rather-than-parliament-led EU” – is in fact chosen and accountable to the European parliament in almost exactly the same way as the British cabinet is to Westminster. Of course we don’t elect every member of the British cabinet, yet to claim that it is unelected would be ludicrous. Instead – in the European parliament as at Westminster – parties are voted for, and whoever has a majority – often a coalition – has the right to choose the commission/cabinet, with the only difference being that in the commission one member must come from each country. The parliament – European and Westminster – retains the right to propose and block legislation, with the EU parliament actually possessing much greater power than Westminster in this regard. As a useful and much underutilised extra, any EU-wide petition that reaches 1m signatures forces the commission to draft an actual law to deal with the problem and put it to a vote in the EU parliament – rather better than the pathetic sole parliamentary debate that popular petitions in the UK are afforded. Those wishing to ban Donald Trump from the EU may wish to take note…
Adam Lawson
London
• My LSE colleague Professor Julian Le Grand (Letters, 30 May) is no doubt correct about the personal qualities of many of his bureaucratic colleagues when he worked for the commission. But his vested interest in the EU makes him miss the point.
The objection to the commission is not its size but its power. The great Prussian general staff was very small in numbers yet it drew up the plans for the whole German army and oversaw their implementation by individual units. The commission does the same regarding the EU and member states. That is the point.
Moreover, the single currency is hardly a “noble experiment”. It has brought mass unemployment, increased suicide rates, reduced pensions, mass emigration and a poisonous political backlash to much of the continent.
Professor Le Grand’s faith in the EU is religious, not rational.
Alan Sked
Emeritus professor of international history, LSE
• Gary Younge says EU remainers keep conceding to him that “the EU is … profoundly undemocratic” (Belittling Brexiters can never be a winning strategy, 1 June). This baffles me a bit, as the EU is only as effective as its parliament, voted for by Europeans every five years, allows it to be. Visiting Brussels a little while ago, I was pedantic enough to seek out the EU headquarters and shell out for the latest edition of The Penguin Companion to European Union, which is compiled in dictionary form, and (mostly) comprehensible to the average reader. As far as I know, it is written by authors with no vested interest or particular EU axe to grind.
The entry on the European parliament clearly states: “The June 1979 European elections, the first international elections in history … generated a body largely composed of full-time MEPs. [After that election] it would clearly be more difficult for the (EU) Council and Commission simply to ignore the Parliament’s views, and MEPs would have the time, the tenacity and the expertise to insist on their views being taken seriously … the Parliament’s consent must be obtained before nearly all agreements are concluded by the Council.” In the words of Herman Van Rompuy (European council president): “Virtually no legislation can be adopted without the approval of Parliament, nor any budget, no financial framework, no international agreement…” This strikes me as democracy at work, not profoundly absent.
Richard Tippett
Henley-on-Thames, Oxfordshire
• Gary Younge makes a good point about the EU referendum debate. Beyond the Tory Brexit civil war there are serious issues for the left to consider. While the EU may guarantee some employment rights that the Brexiters would happily scrap, there is also the question of what would happen if a future UK government decided to pursue anti-austerity politics. Would it be prevented from doing so by EU intervention, as Greece effectively was in 2015, or is there a way of changing how the EU works to stop that from happening again?
Keith Flett
London
• Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com
