Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

FUCK YES LET'S LEAVE GET HYPE YEY

Casual yes, let's leave and get independence done with

Meh, probably just scribble all over my vote ballot to spite tryhards

Casual no, let's remain and get integration done with

FUCK NO LET'S REMAIN GET CALM YEY

[TheBiggerFish]

PTW.

[martinuzz]

Why, if they are voted for by the democratically elected EU Parliament?

They're unconstitutional. EU has no Constitution. I don't regard a parliament whose only foundation is a handful of incoherent treaties as being particularily democratic, whether their members are voted into their positions by a general elections circus or not.

[Powder Miner]

Well, I'm a 'murican so I'm hardly an involved perspective, but I'd personally like to see the Brexit happen -- I've come to feel that the EU is something of an undemocratic institution, as non-UK-elected (and in some cases non-elected in general) officials place down increasing restrictions on what the UK can or cannot do.

Most countries have laws enacted over them that they (the country) don't like, but is the will of Europe.  Some countries get opt-outs (e.g. Malta opting out of not being allowed to shoot migrating birds whose numbers are in decline) and some countries just ignore the 'rules' that were still set for them when they don't feel like complying.

Being British, we don't ignore so many rules, so we are more or less forced to stick with our subset of negotiated opt-outs.  (e.g. single currency, purely-metric weights and measures, Schengen...)

SOME EU laws that are disfavored by the member countries aren't enacted, but many are, and it's that breach of democracy I have a problem with.

Why, if they are voted for by the democratically elected EU Parliament?

Are all the officials with sway over EU restrictions and laws elected by the EU parliament

And even if they were, they certainly weren't all elected by any single member country, so citizens of any individual country are naturally giving up some of their ability to elect their lawmakers.

[Sheb]

The same is true within any country. Citizens of any part of the country are giving up their power to elect their own lawmakers. It's not necessarily a bad argument (some thing are better managed at a lower level), but you need to apply it to a specific case. In this general form, the only logical thing would be to have 6 billions countries of one.

As for the first question: no. National governments, which seat on the Council (which work VERY roughly as the upper house of the European system) are of course not elected by the EU Parliament. The Commission (cross between a senior civil service and a government, actually write most of the directives that are then voted on by the rest) is made of people proposed by the national governments and then voted on by the Parliament.

Since the last European elections, the Parliament has decided that it would not vote in a Commission whose president isn't the candidate selected by the winning European Party, making it the facto a system similar to the UK one in that aspect. The precedent has been set with Junckers, but it's not clear how strongly it would stand if the Council took a more adversarial stance in the next elections.

martinuzz: Actually, I'd love to see a constitution too (and not the 150-page crap they trie to call a Constitution last time. A Constitution should be understandable), but I don't think it's a sine qua non condition for democracy. Again, the UK are also lacking a proper, written constitution.

[Powder Miner]

The difference is that the EU is NOT a country, and that it is a conference of leaderships that vote the leadership of the EU into place; the amount of representation lost in that level is astounding. At least Parliament, which makes national laws in Britain, gets directly voted for. But the EU is not voted for my the diverse interests along the UK, and sees no level of that minority expression that Parliament voting does. It's the majority that counts to elect Commissioners in the end, and for EU laws it's a majority not even comprised of one's own country. The minority opinion is in many cases doomed.

At least purely national level governments have the best interests of the country in mind and have that layer of directly elected accountability and representation for minority views. The EU has none of these three traits.

[Aklyon]

The EU also seems to have a thing for attacking google simply (if not worded directly) because its not a european company.

[smjjames]

martinuzz: Actually, I'd love to see a constitution too (and not the 150-page crap they trie to call a Constitution last time. A Constitution should be understandable), but I don't think it's a sine qua non condition for democracy. Again, the UK are also lacking a proper, written constitution.

They DO have the Magna Carta and other stuff created over the centuries.

Also, Cameron does a strawman!

Pretty sure he is referring to the balkans, since everybody else (except some Eastern European countries) have had their animostities between each other either beaten out or healed over time.

[Sheb]

The difference is that the EU is NOT a country,

So what?

and that it is a conference of leaderships that vote the leadership of the EU into place; the amount of representation lost in that level is astounding. At least Parliament, which makes national laws in Britain, gets directly voted for.

So does the European Parliament.

But the EU is not voted for my the diverse interests along the UK, and sees no level of that minority expression that Parliament voting does. It's the majority that counts to elect Commissioners in the end,

Not dissimilar to the way the majority gets to elect the government in the UK.

and for EU laws it's a majority not even comprised of one's own country. The minority opinion is in many cases doomed.

Sounds like democracy to me.

At least purely national level ghvernments have the best interests of the country in mind and have that layer of directly elected accountability and representation for minority views. The EU has none of these three traits.

You can just replace country by "Europe" in there and it'll apply equally well to both.

I mean, you can take what we could call a nationalist view and consider that the British people form a natural unit of government the way the European people does not. But that's not the same thing as saying the EU institution are undemocratic.

[Powder Miner]

My view here is probably "tainted" is that I strongly dislike the parliamentary system anyway.

The difference is that the EU is NOT a country,

So what?

This was in effect part of my thesis. The rest of it what my attempt to explain what.

and that it is a conference of leaderships that vote the leadership of the EU into place; the amount of representation lost in that level is astounding. At least Parliament, which makes national laws in Britain, gets directly voted for.

So does the European Parliament.

It's the commission I find most objectionable, though I find issue with the Parliament that I suppose would in fact Coke from believing a country to be a better unit of government that you suggest later.

But the EU is not voted for my the diverse interests along the UK, and sees no level of that minority expression that Parliament voting does. It's the majority that counts to elect Commissioners in the end,

Not dissimilar to the way the majority gets to elect the government in the UK.

[/quote] Both houses of the government have SIGNIFICANT minority view representation in the UK government. Not so in the Commission.

and for EU laws it's a majority not even comprised of one's own country. The minority opinion is in many cases doomed.

Sounds like democracy to me.

Not to me. Minority views hold a level of sway in the British Parliament, yes? Because it isn't uniform. It's even more the case in the United States Congress, even if you discount the Senate. *toots needless patriotism horn*

At least purely national level ghvernments have the best interests of the country in mind and have that layer of directly elected accountability and representation for minority views. The EU has none of these three traits.

You can just replace country by "Europe" in there and it'll apply equally well to both.

No it won't. Countries are distinct enough that one can vote for something that would nuke the common EU interest but would DIRECTLY advance their own interests. If you do the same in a country, and people sometimes do, it has a way of biting you in the butt. And I don't mean to compare states voting for their interests -- you can vote "SCREW THE EU" and be largely fine, but if you vote with the intent of screwing the country over, you screw yourself. Europe as a whole is simply FAR more clashing with interests and blocs of interest than a single country; it is exponentially less uniform.

I mean, you can take what we could call a nationalist view and consider that the British people form a natural unit of government the way the European people does not. But that's not the same thing as saying the EU institution are undemocratic.

I admit to taking that view to an extent. But I ALSO take the second view. It isn't self-contradictory.

[martinuzz]

It's not whether those in power are elected into their office which makes a democracy, it's what they do with that power.
I mean, Hitler was originally voted into office democratically too, but I wouldn't call nazi Germany very democratic.

With the EU making shady deals with sultans, the EU holding classified, confidential meetings about the TTIP treaty, which will seriously hamper any participant state's democratic autonomy, especially the ISDS part of that treaty, and with xenophobia on the high rise, including in the EU parliament, I daresay that the EU isn't behaving much like a democratic institution.

[Aklyon]

ISDS

They're still pushing for that useless rubbish?

[Starver]

And even if they were, they certainly weren't all elected by any single member country, so citizens of any individual country are naturally giving up some of their ability to elect their lawmakers.

I don't get a say as to who is Prime Minister (to any practical degree). We don't even vote between the two (or more) candidates selected for our benefit by people who were mandated to select those that their parties deemed worthy enough to enter the race on their behalf (to simplify things) like happens with US presidents.

And anyone who votes for a party's candidate because they want (or don't want?) a (different?) party's leader to be Prime Minister, rather than because they know and like (or dislike less than the others) the candidate and their own personal stance...  they're probably setting themselves up for dissapointment.  More than usual, that is.

[Powder Miner]

I'm very much not a fan of parliamentary systems. But even then, the European Parliament is full xzibit levels of parliament inside a parliament, so the minority's even more screwed.

[Starver]

I'm very much not a fan of parliamentary systems. But even then, the European Parliament is full xzibit levels of parliament inside a parliament, so the minority's even more screwed.

Sortition for Parliament, I say. If not in the Commons, then as (part of) the Lords.

I forget now if this forum was the one I last expounded my more radical overhauling idea, and I don't want to repeat myself...

[Sheb]

Powder Miner, do you know what the difference between a parliament and a government is? Because you sound very confused.

Both houses of the government have SIGNIFICANT minority view representation in the UK government. Not so in the Commission.

and for EU laws it's a majority not even comprised of one's own country. The minority opinion is in many cases doomed.

Sounds like democracy to me.

Not to me. Minority views hold a level of sway in the British Parliament, yes? Because it isn't uniform. It's even more the case in the United States Congress, even if you discount the Senate. *toots needless patriotism horn*

Like saying "Houses of government". Also the fact that you compare the commission (an executive body of 28 members) to legislative bodies with hundred of members.