Is this the most compelling reason to leave the EU?

[feellikeahugefailure]

So we can have better tasting breakfast cereals.

Not quite sure the UK could become Europe's main maker of colourful cereals

[OohhItsNotHoxton]

Well that's my mind made up. I don't know why this hasn't been a major argument thus far for Boris. It would have saved an awful lot of faffing.

[Tartsamazeballs]

Looks more like a reason to stay in to be honest

[SecretSpy]

Bloody Europe. Only letting us eat safe food colourings, the utter bastards.

Let's vote leave then we can bring back dangerous food colourings, stop workers from having essential rest breaks and other luxurious poncey rights like a sensible gap between shifts.

[someonestolemynick]

It may be the UK doing this. In Germany tasty, cheap and colourful fruitloops are availabe and have been simce i was a kid.

[feellikeahugefailure]

This thread was mostly highearted, but at the same time should a non elected organisation be able to stop people from eating certain foods?

I once said it was selfish for people to gorge on crap food as we have a publicly funded NHS and I was crucified by people saying "it's an adults human rights to eat what they like".

[pointythings]

Well, as the parent of a DD who really reacts very badly to the kind of pink and red food dyes which are still legal in some places, I'm glad they aren't available in the EU.

And can we please stop it with the 'unelected' nonsense? We have elections for the European parliament every 5 years.

[Pangurban1]

The Council is made up of the heads of state/Government elected by the electorates in the member states. They review the legislation proposed by the Commission. With the Parliament (but sometimes on its own) it can be amended, adopted and rejected by the Council.

Both the Council and the Parliament can block the legislative proposal.

The Commission had only some very limited areas where it can act without consent or consultation with the other bodies.

[Pangurban1]

Got a chuckle from your opening, op. There seems to be a lot of sugar in U.S. stuff (I know this is about colouring). I remember when someone brought me back a Hershey bar. I was so looking forward to biting into something I had only seen in movies.

Boy, was I disappointed. It was vile if you were expecting something that tasted better than Cadburys. It was sickly sweet to my palate. Having said that I did suffer my way through it!

[feellikeahugefailure]

Hershey is a bit like vomit imo

[WutheringTights]

The commission is a lot like our own House of Lords when you come to think of it. Shame there isn't as much appetite to reform that as there is to pull out of the EU.

[EveryoneElsie]

Do you want to eat US style chocolate? Is that what you want? Because thats what you'll get.

[MagicMojito]

I genuinely know RL people who would base their vote on this. Bloody terrifying.

[caroldecker]

AFAIK, the unelected commission propose the laws (which are voted on by elected peoples) - the elected peoples do not propose laws, so the opposite of the HOL.

[lljkk]

The only good reason to vote Leave is to get the Brexiters to STFU.

[BrendaFurlong]

The House of Lords can and does propose laws (albeit most Bills originate as Government Bills in the commons)

[Terryscombover]

The EU parliament have a huge amount of power over proposals from the European Commission (usually adding in nonsense as they are often not technical experts!). Huge power.

So do the council of Europe made up of elected ministers from the member states.

Either or both groups can block or completely change Commission proposals. And then tell the electorate at home the EU are to blame for unpopular laws!!!!!

[feellikeahugefailure]

Do you want to eat US style chocolate? Is that what you want? Because thats what you'll get.

Isn't that what we have with cadburys now?
Angrybird:

[MustStopAndThinkBeforePosting]

For what it is worth, there are 55,000 EU "unelected officials" (civil servants) whereas the UK has 393,000 unelected officials.

In the UK, when a change is made the government of elected officials vote first on an item of headline policy (e.g. we are going to cut the budget for flood defences by x% or invest in training more pharmacists or create a new scheme to get 18-25yos into work) - then after the vote the civil servants get started creating the full workable policy to actually decide which rivers are going to be left without flood defences, which universities are going to be given more resources to expand, which rules and sanctions are going to be applied to the new schemes - there are a lot of complex decisions that need to be made by specialist professionals who know all the facts and have been working in the sector for years rather than a minister who was working on pensions before the last reshuffle but will be in health after the next reshuffle. Civil servants often have utter nightmares getting a system that actually works and does what the government intends because the legislation doesn't have to take into account such trifling issues of practical feasibility if it doesn't want to.

In the EU the difference is that the civil servants come up with a workable practical plan for something that is needed before the elected legislative body debates amends and votes upon it, so that the elected representatives are able to understand the full implications of the new system before they vote rather than voting for something in principle before the details are all known. Arguably more efficient in terms of workload being paid for by taxpayers but not fundamentally less democratic.