That's the point I was making. It's kind of complicated to explain without going into too much depth, but the example of the United States is always a good one.
The Council and European Council are somwhat like the Senate, in which the people in them represent their member state (or state in the case of the US)
The Parliament is somewhat like the House of Representatives, in that they are not supposed to represent their specific member state or state, but the Union as a whole.
Therefore, it makes no sense for him to be discussing matters that relate to something that the United Kingdom has done because even though he is British in the European Parliament he does not represent the UK, but the European Union.
If he were in the Council or the European Council these kind of comments would make sense, but he isn't, and therefore they don't. It is sort of like having anarchists elected in parlaiment, it doesn't really serve a purpose. They are not elected to the parliament to choose how or what to govern, but to simply govern over what is given to them in the treaties. In his capacity as an MEP (same applies to Farage) there is no point in him expressing these opnions (although of course he is more than free to do so) and, at the same time, his opinions therefore don't matter to anyone important in the Union because it's not his job and he has no real effect on these things. Again, as I said, it just hinders the process by wasting everyone's time.
Anyway, I've spent quite a lot of time studying EU Law and the treaties of the EU and it's the fact that the EU doesn't make any effort to educate people about what it does and how that most annoys me about it. But at the same time, I still haven't found a way to explain it in a way that's very easily understandable either. I just wish that peoples reasoning for not supporting the EU was based on fact and not heresay perpetuated by the press, members of government and people like Farage or Hannan.
|