Should We Leave the EU?

[TheKnightWho]

The point being that we choose the government so it's our own fault if they're not good enough. Supporting undemocratic institutions because they happen to do things you agree with at the time is very dangerous. If they start doing things you disagree with, good luck in throwing them out.

Except it isn't our own fault, because the way we select the government is far from perfectly democratic. We can fantasise about what-ifs if the UK were perfect and would be much more democratic, wealthy or whatever without the EU - however, that is simply not the case given the make-up of the UK.

The EU is not undemocratic, and in fact has a much fairer electoral system than we do. I could equally make the argument that supporting the UK's system because you like it is dangerous, since that was the primary argument against improving it back in 2014 ("FPTP is more stable" etc.).

 

[richa2002]

that just isn't true. In several areas we have MORE power over EU policy than other members. You could ask why the UK is able to hold up or block legislation that has been agreed upon by the majority of members!

I think you misunderstand or perhaps don't really understand the point you make about self governing.

Yes, more than recent Eastern European entrants and lesser members but more than Germany, I don't think so... To be honest, the EU could consist of simply Britain and Germany with an equal say and it would still be a democratic abomination. To think hundreds of thousands of men gave their lives to protect our independence and people today will casually allow other nations to have a say on the laws we abide by.

The point is, it's not a question if we have more say than other member states, it's a question of whether we have an absolute say and that simply isn't the case. For as long as that reigns, we are not self-governing. It's very simple.

 

[TheKnightWho]

The EU lists 14 institutions in its brief description of its make up.

Unless I am mistaken we get to vote for members of one of those institutions, MEPs.

The other 13 bodies are all appointees.

Some democracy!

Are you in favour of abolishing the UK's civil service? And the House of Lords? And the Supreme Court? And all the other institutions we don't vote in?

Selectively stating that we only get to vote in 1/14 of the institutions isn't a very convincing argument when it equally applies to any government - because it makes no sense to vote for absolutely every member that makes it work.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Yes, more than recent Eastern European entrants and lesser members but more than Germany, I don't think so... To be honest, the EU could consist of simply Britain and Germany with an equal say and it would still be a democratic abomination. To think hundreds of thousands of men gave their lives to protect our independence and people today will casually allow other nations to have a say on the laws we abide by.

The point is, it's not a question if we have more say than other member states, it's a question of whether we have an absolute say and that simply isn't the case. For as long as that reigns, we are not self-governing. It's very simple.

You're seriously making the argument that people died 70 years ago, therefore the EU is bad? Jesus Christ - people say that the UK isn't living in the past, and then people come out with stuff like this. We were at war with Scotland 500 yeasr ago and thousands of people gave their lives. Is the UK a democratic abomination too? What about England with Northumbria and Wessex et al.? Should we all just live in separate villages with an absolute democracy in each? Why even have society at all? Shouldn't we all just live alone so that no-one can influence us?

That's to say nothing of the fact that we will still have to abide by almost all EU regulations if we leave anyway if we want to trade or do integrated business with them. But then, don't forget good old Tommy beating Jerry back in '45 - that's far more important than a modern economy, right? Drawing the line where you do doesn't make an awful lot of sense from a practical perspective - it doesn't stop European influence on us, and it certainly doesn't give us any kind of nebulous freedom, because we live in a globalised world where co-operation is key. Concessions are made because it's better for everyone in the long-run - isolationism leads to nothing good.

 

[richa2002]

Except it isn't our own fault, because the way we select the government is far from perfectly democratic. We can fantasise about what-ifs if the UK were perfect and would be much more democratic, wealthy or whatever without the EU - however, that is simply not the case given the make-up of the UK.

The EU is not undemocratic, and in fact has a much fairer electoral system than we do. I could equally make the argument that supporting the UK's system because you like it is dangerous, since that was the primary argument against improving it back in 2014 ("FPTP is more stable" etc.).

You seem to have moved onto electoral systems.

Fact is, as bad as the UK electoral system is in being more democratic, it is still solely decided by the people of Britain.

The EU Parliament might have a more proportional, democratic but's that worth diddly squat if the electorate that's based on is 500 million EU citizens. I reiterate, it simply comes down to whether the people of Britain govern you or the people of Europe govern you.

 

[DarloRich]

Yes, more than recent Eastern European entrants and lesser members but more than Germany, I don't think so... To be honest, the EU could consist of simply Britain and Germany with an equal say and it would still be a democratic abomination. To think hundreds of thousands of men gave their lives to protect our independence and people today will casually allow other nations to have a say on the laws we abide by.

The point is, it's not a question if we have more say than other member states, it's a question of whether we have an absolute say and that simply isn't the case. For as long as that reigns, we are not self-governing. It's very simple.

I wont respond to the we didn't win a war for this rubbish rubbish.

However, did you get a vote in both the General and European elections? I think i did..............

 

[TheKnightWho]

You seem to have moved onto electoral systems.

Fact is, as bad as the UK electoral system is in being more democratic, it is still solely decided by the people of Britain.

The EU Parliament might have a more proportional, democratic but's that worth diddly squat if the electorate that's based on is 500 million EU citizens. I reiterate, it simply comes down to whether the people of Britain govern you or the people of Europe govern you.

It doesn't matter that it's decided by the people of Britain: my MEP represents my interests better than my MP because they were decided through a much improved system. Plus, why is Britain so important anyway? Why do I want someone from Shetland, Powys or Cornwall dictating my life any more than I want someone from Dresden? Just appealing to "Britain is good because it's Britain" doesn't fly when we consider the practical necessities of the EU, and the realities of what would happen if we were to leave. To be honest - why should we have a government at all? Why should anyone tell me what to do? Because it's necessary for a functioning society. Society today spans the world - and it certainly spans Europe. The practical benefits of the EU are necessary. All governments are, by definition ("to govern") a compromise on liberty, but that's because we all recognise why they're needed. The problem the EU has had is that the papers have been banging on about how terrible it is for self-interested reasons, and so everyone takes for granted the benefits of the EU.

I do not understand this visceral hatred to people who we co-operate with in every other area being part of a body that works with us towards mutual benefit. They are not dictating our lives: EU regulations are formed by all members, and can be vetoed at times when there are major problems for single nations.

 

[richa2002]

Are you in favour of abolishing the UK's civil service? And the House of Lords? And the Supreme Court? And all the other institutions we don't vote in?

Selectively stating that we only get to vote in 1/14 of the institutions isn't a very convincing argument when it equally applies to any government - because it makes no sense to vote for absolutely every member that makes it work.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


You're seriously making the argument that people died 70 years ago, therefore the EU is bad? Jesus Christ - people say that the UK isn't living in the past, and then people come out with stuff like this. We were at war with Scotland 500 yeasr ago and thousands of people gave their lives. Is the UK a democratic abomination too? What about England with Northumbria and Wessex et al.? Should we all just live in separate villages with an absolute democracy in each? Why even have society at all? Shouldn't we all just live alone so that no-one can influence us? Drawing the line where you do doesn't make an awful lot of sense from a practical perspective - it doesn't stop European influence on us, and it certainly doesn't give us any kind of nebulous freedom.

That's to say nothing of the fact that we will still have to abide by almost all EU regulations if we leave anyway if we want to trade or do integrated business with them. But then, don't forget good old Tommy beating Jerry back in '45 - that's far more important than a modern economy, right?

Yawn. I knew you would ignore the crux of the argument and focus on the emotional part about the World Wars. My mention of the wars was not part of the argument but a separate indictment on the attitudes of those so willing to give our independence away. If you have such a throw away attitude to history and what those who did before us did then that's very sad. I know it's seen as rather intelligent and lofty not to resort to such thoughts though so I congratulate you for that. You should be proud of your enlightened thinking.

Regardless though, you can throw my comment about the wars in the bin if you like, that's fine by me. It doesn't change my actual argument one bit.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It doesn't matter that it's decided by the people of Britain: my MEP represents my interests better than my MP because they were decided through a much improved system. Plus, why is Britain so important anyway? Why do I want someone from Shetland, Powys or Cornwall dictating my life any more than I want someone from Dresden? Just appealing to "Britain is good because it's Britain" doesn't fly when we consider the practical necessities of the EU, and the realities of what would happen if we were to leave.

I do not understand this visceral hatred to people who we co-operate with in every other area being part of a body that works with us towards mutual benefit. They are not dictating our lives: EU regulations are formed by all members, and can be vetoed at times when there are major problems for single nations.

Like I say, this all depends on what you consider as your nation. If you want your county to have independence from the rest of Britain, go for it, campaign for the ultimate democracy. I'm personally happy with the whole of Britain having a say but the whole of Europe, no thanks. Like I say though, if you're fine with that, there's nothing I can say to convince you otherwise. Go for your one nation Europe. I just believe differently.

"Veteoed at any time". Yeah, like the DfT begging to not have to use KMH and KM when ERTMS comes about and the EC saying no. A small but one of numerous examples.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Yawn. I knew you would ignore the crux of the argument and focus on the emotional part about the World Wars. My mention of the wars was not part of the argument but a separate indictment on the attitudes of those so willing to give our independence away. If you have such a throw away attitude to history and what those who did before us did then that's very sad. I know it's seen as rather intelligent and lofty not to resort to such thoughts though so I congratulate you for that. You should be proud of your enlightened thinking.

Regardless though, you can throw my comment about the wars in the bin if you like, that's fine by me. It doesn't change my actual argument one bit.

There is no crux to your argument. It's just that "it's undemocratic" without explaining why. We are not trying to be in an EU with the Germany of 1939: your argument makes no sense.

Frankly, it is you who has a throwaway attitude to history, living in the past and failing to see how the world has moved on for the better - and that involves working with our neighbours. If you want to isolate yourself in some little fortress then move to a desert island and be my guest - but do not force the rest of us who actually need the EU to do the same.

All governments are compromises on liberty - even the UK one. Drawing the line at the UK by harking back to some war that hardly anyone alive even fought in is not the way to decide how to run a modern country. It makes absolutely no sense to appeal to democracy on these grounds unless you also support independence for your local council from the UK, and your local village from that, and even yourself from that: except the reason that makes no sense, as is obvious to everyone, is that co-operation is necessary. That also applies to the UK and the EU.

 

[richa2002]

I wont respond to the we didn't win a war for this rubbish rubbish.

However, did you get a vote in both the General and European elections? I think i did..............

Right, so I have to reiterate this again do I.

If you consider yourself as part of the country of Europe then yes, the Parliament is democratically elected. I personally don't think a French/German/whatever MEP should have as much say over the laws I have to abide by as a British MEP though. Like I say, it simply depends on whether you think Britain is a self-governing country or part of a one nation Europe where Joe Bloggs from Germany has as much say as Joe Bloggs from Britain.

In summary:
General election: Wholly decided by British people
EU election: Wholly decided by EU citizens

My vote worth less at the EU election. Hundreds of millions other with the same/similar value of vote, thus, undemocratic if you believe in Britain as a self-governing.

This is so so simple it's unreal. Have people lost the ability to think logically and get things down to fundamental base principles. Crikey.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Like I say, this all depends on what you consider as your nation. If you want your county to have independence from the rest of Britain, go for it, campaign for the ultimate democracy. I'm personally happy with the whole of Britain having a say but the whole of Europe, no thanks. Like I say though, if you're fine with that, there's nothing I can say to convince you otherwise. Go for your one nation Europe. I just believe differently.

"Veteoed at any time". Yeah, like the DfT begging to not have to use KMH and KM when ERTMS comes about and the EC saying no. A small but one of numerous examples.

The choice is not one-nation Europe or a bunch of isolated nations. Frankly, this dichotomy is ridiculous. No-one is advocating abolishing Westminster.

I hope you enjoy that desert island you're planning on moving to soon? Because frankly, don't take away my liberty by taking us out of something that has been incredibly successful for European co-operation for the last 50 years.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Right, so I have to reiterate this again do I.

If you consider yourself as part of the country of Europe then yes, the Parliament is democratically elected. I personally don't think a French/German/whatever MEP should have as much say over the laws I have to abide by as a British MEP though. Like I say, it simply depends on whether you think Britain is a self-governing country or part of a one nation Europe where Joe Bloggs from Germany has as much say as Joe Bloggs from Britain.

In summary:
General election: Wholly decided by British people
EU election: Wholly decided by EU citizens

My vote worth less at the EU election. Hundreds of millions other with the same/similar value of vote, thus, undemocratic if you believe in Britain as a self-governing.

This is so so simple it's unreal. Have people lost the ability to think logically and get things down to fundamental base principles. Crikey.

Why should someone from the Western Isles or Powys have any bearing on my life more than someone from Dresden or Rome?

In both cases we:

1) Live nowhere near each other.
2) Have never met.
3) Quite likely speak English as a second language.
4) Have very different wants and needs.

Except you want the former group to be able to dictate my government, but not the latter! Appealing to Britain as some fundamental good isn't a good argument unfortunately: you need to say what unites us separately from Europe in such a way that necessitates our separation from them.

 

[furnessvale]

Are you in favour of abolishing the UK's civil service? And the House of Lords? And the Supreme Court? And all the other institutions we don't vote in?

The political direction is set by the European Council (unelected)

New laws are proposed by the Commission (unelected)

Rather more than a civil service who do as the elected government bids don't you think?

I will concede that MEPs are graciously allowed to rubber stamp the Commission's proposals!

 

[yorksrob]

Except it isn't our own fault, because the way we select the government is far from perfectly democratic. We can fantasise about what-ifs if the UK were perfect and would be much more democratic, wealthy or whatever without the EU - however, that is simply not the case given the make-up of the UK.

The EU is not undemocratic, and in fact has a much fairer electoral system than we do. I could equally make the argument that supporting the UK's system because you like it is dangerous, since that was the primary argument against improving it back in 2014 ("FPTP is more stable" etc.).

Except that it is our fault.

I've spent several general elections voting against greater market liberalisation and more privatisation of public services.

Even though our parties seem incapable of providing alternatives, there is still the hope that a government will one day be elected with an alternative view.

Such change seems a lot more unobtainable when such policies become enshrined by international treaty which can only be undone with the agreemeof twenty something different countries.

 

[richa2002]

There is no crux to your argument. It's just that "it's undemocratic" without explaining why. We are not trying to be in an EU with the Germany of 1939: your argument makes no sense.

I have reiterated three whole times with the same quote as to why it's undemocratic. If you still can't understand then that's my piece done.

Frankly, it is you who has a throwaway attitude to history, living in the past and failing to see how the world has moved on for the better - and that involves working with our neighbours. If you want to isolate yourself in some little fortress then move to a desert island and be my guest - but do not force the rest of us who actually need the EU to do the same.

Working with your neighbours is excellent. Of course it is. Where self governing nations can come to agreements and individually pull out at any time they like. Britain has to abide by EU rulings if it doesn't agree with them. It is not sovereign.

All governments are compromises on liberty - even the UK one. Drawing the line at the UK by harking back to some war that hardly anyone alive even fought in is not the way to decide how to run a modern country. It makes absolutely no sense to appeal to democracy on these grounds unless you also support independence for your local council from the UK, and your local village from that, and even yourself from that: except the reason that makes no sense, as is obvious to everyone, is that co-operation is necessary. That also applies to the UK and the EU.

You love using terms like 'modern country'. These terms won't fly with me and is just meaningless rhetoric devoid of logical argument.

You still focus on the war comment. A mistake on my part to give you a distraction to rant on about with your glorious modern and enlightened thinking, whilst still ignoring the same piece about democracy that I have copied three times.

I believe in Britain deciding it's own laws, not Europe. Simple. There's nothing modern or clever about watering down democracy. A base principle that over-rides any debatable notions of economic benefit.

I've said my piece. Hopefully it may have swayed some but if you don't understand or agree by now, you never will. Have a nice day everyone!

 

[TheKnightWho]

The political direction is set by the European Council (unelected)

New laws are proposed by the Commission (unelected)

Rather more than a civil service who do as the elected government bids don't you think?

I will concede that MEPs are graciously allowed to rubber stamp the Commission's proposals!

MEPs propose laws; the commission makes them workable. This is exactly the same as MPs and civil servants. The idea that MEPs rubber stamp is simply ignorant, to be honest. You're welcome to actually look at MEP votes and see how things actually happen, but then it's much easier to read about this in the paper, isn't it...

What about the House of Lords and Supreme Court? Want to abolish those?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I have reiterated three whole times with the same quote as to why it's undemocratic. If you still can't understand then that's my piece done.

No, you have just said "Britain is good because it's Britain" and then refused to engage with my argument. If you can't understand why your argument is arbitrary, then I despair for the state of this country.

Working with your neighbours is excellent. Of course it is. Where self governing nations can come to agreements and individually pull out at any time they like. Britain has to abide by EU rulings if it doesn't agree with them. It is not sovereign.

Do you understand the concept of contracts and why they're important? Being able to pull out of something at any time is not an automatic good.

You love using terms like 'modern cou
You still focus on the war comment. A mistake on my part to give you a distraction to rant on about with your modern thinking, whilst still ignoring the same piece about democracy that I have copied three times.

I believe in Britain deciding it's own laws, not Europe. Simple. There's nothing modern or clever about watering down democracy.

I've said my piece. Hopefully it may have swayed some but if you don't understand or agree by now, you never will. Have a nice day everyone!

You have totally failed to answer any of my points regarding democracy, and have continued to bang on about how I mentioned the war comment. Rather ironic, when you're the one who fails to engage with argument. Then again, I didn't expect any better when you seem to consider "The EU is undemocratic" as some fundamental thing: it's clearly impossible to actually engage with you properly. Your argument assumes that Britain is some fundamental, separate political entity that can never be part of any union with any other, and so you've set things up so you can never be convinced otherwise. Saying my arguments are illogical because you're refusing to engage with them isn't going to work, unfortunately.

Also, repeating your argument without actually answering the questions I've put to it to answer it doesn't make me seem stupid; it makes you look like you don't want to answer what I've said. I have understood what you're trying to say; please stop assuming I'm thick because I don't agree with you. You've failed to explain why this instance of co-operation is some awful "base" principle, and yet why Westminster is not, even though I have not once had a candidate MP I've voted for actually get in. Isn't that anti-democratic, too? Almost like you're picking and choosing when liberty and co-operation are important to suit your arbitrary argument...

Once again: why should someone from Cornwall have more influence than someone from Dresden? The answer "they're British" is, unfortunately for you, not a convincing one. The fact is that I don't want either of them telling me what to do unless they have to, and the fact is that when nations co-operate it inevitably requires compromises to create something that is greater than the sum of its parts. If you can't get past your nationalism then that is not my problem, but do not drag the rest of us into recession over it.

 

[Barn]

Why should someone from the Western Isles or Powys have any bearing on my life more than someone from Dresden or Rome?

In both cases we:

1) Live nowhere near each other.
2) Have never met.
3) Quite likely speak English as a second language.
4) Have very different wants and needs.

Except you want the former group to be able to dictate my government, but not the latter! Appealing to Britain as some fundamental good isn't a good argument unfortunately: you need to say what unites us separately from Europe in such a way that necessitates our separation from them.

This is the crux of the matter, isn't it? You're asking what a country is. A country is a collection of peoples who have agreed to share sovereignty. The demos in the democracy.

I believe that the British are a country - the people of Carlisle are broadly happy to pool their sovereignty with the people of Penzance and Swansea and Maidstone and Inverness. Despite your points 1-4 above, there is something that glues us together - a belief in our institutions, our culture, our society. Perhaps that something is irrational, but it is there.

We simply do not feel the same way towards the Portuguese and the Estonians and the Danes and the Bulgarians. That does not mean that they and we cannot be good friends and neighbours.

 

[furnessvale]

MEPs propose laws; the commission makes them workable. This is exactly the same as MPs and civil servants. The idea that MEPs rubber stamp is simply ignorant, to be honest. You're welcome to actually look at MEP votes and see how things actually happen, but then it's much easier to read about this in the paper, isn't it...

Perhaps you should tell the EU, not me, because my information comes from the EU official website.

Seems I am not the only "simply ignorant" one around here, to be honest.

I certainly don't get my information from The Guardian.

 

[Barn]

MEPs propose laws; the commission makes them workable. This is exactly the same as MPs and civil servants.

I'm afraid that is misleading. Unlike the civil service, the Commission has legislative initiative and may propose laws on its own volition.

MEPs have a new right to request that the Commission proposes legislation under Article 225 TFEU but this request may be denied if the Commission chooses to as long as it gives its reasons.

This is deliberate and, although 'undemocratic', is not necessarily a bad thing. I am not entirely sure that I would want a new motion to be initiated by a simple majority of MEPs who might represent economies entirely different from our own.

 

[TheKnightWho]

This is the crux of the matter, isn't it? You're asking what a country is. A country is a collection of peoples who have agreed to share sovereignty. The demos in the democracy.

I believe that the British are a country - the people of Carlisle are broadly happy to pool their sovereignty with the people of Penzance and Swansea and Maidstone and Inverness. Despite your points 1-4 above, there is something that glues us together - a belief in our institutions, our culture, our society. Perhaps that something is irrational, but it is there.

We simply do not feel the same way towards the Portugese and the Estonians and the Danes and the Bulgarians. That does not mean that they and we cannot be good friends and neighbours.

Well yes, this is the thing. It ultimately comes down to how people express their liberty. What make a nation is when people say they form a nation (these days anyway - thankfully we've got rid of the idea of pieces of land or colour of skin dictating it for the most part). Increasingly, people are actually taking on a more European identity. And yes, we don't feel the same way about those living in neighbouring countries, but I think we all feel far more affinity with someone from Ireland or France than we do with someone from China or Brazil. I certainly don't feel more bound to someone from Scotland than I do to someone from Ireland, for example!

And that's why I don't see many people proposing some kind of European superstate, even if that would make the most sense economically and (despite the protestations of the Daily Mail) defence/security. Because it doesn't make sense as a political unit to go that far - but it does makes sense to form a union, with all of the economic and cooperative advantages that that brings.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I'm afraid that is misleading. Unlike the civil service, the Commission has legislative initiative and may propose laws on its own volition.

MEPs have a new right to request that the Commission proposes legislation under Article 225 TFEU but this request may be denied if the Commission chooses to as long as it gives its reasons.

This is deliberate and, although 'undemocratic', is not necessarily a bad thing. I am not entirely sure that I would want a new motion to be initiated by a simple majority of MEPs who might represent economies entirely different from our own.

It's hardly different to the way things operate in the UK. Private members bills, which furnessvale seems to want, hardly ever pass (in fact, I can't think of any that have!).

 

[miami]

The EU commission president is proposed by the council appointed by the MEPs, just like the PM is proposed by the queen and appointed by MPs

The other commissioners are then appointed by the council - where under the UK system they're appointed by the PM (who himself is appointed by MPs)

By all means argue against the council (which is appointed by westminster and other parliaments), but in any case it's more democratic than the house of lords.

What is the first law that the Brexiters would drop? As a country we seem capable of blocking new laws quite easilly (like blocking laws on the transparency of trusts), so I'm intrigued as to what is the first thing we would do upon leaving? What evidence is there that the government will actually do that? I suspect the first thing that they'll do is take the money "saved" and use it to try to reduce the deficit (not the debt) of the country. In the meantime all that EU investment in poor areas of the country would stop.

 

[Barn]

It's hardly different to the way things operate in the UK. Private members bills, which furnessvale seems to want, hardly ever pass (in fact, I can't think of any that have!).

In the UK (yes, with our imperfect voting system) we vote in a domestic political party to control the House of Commons and gain legislative initiative.

In the EU it is not constitutionally possible to vote in an EU political party to gain legislative initiative.

Whilst this is an undemocratic feature of the EU, it is not something that should necessarily be 'fixed' without careful thought. This arrangement exists by design. It could be dangerous for unrestricted legislative initiative to be given to MEPs. At the moment Europeans can blame EU laws that we do not like on faceless bureaucrats. Imagine what it would do to transcontinental harmony if instead a country aggrieved by a change in law could actually blame 'those Eastern Europeans' or 'those Mediterraneans' or 'those Anglo-Saxons' for the change.

PS: Private members' bills have ended the death penalty, legalised abortion, reformed murder law, banned certain knives, strengthened the law on female genital mutilation, brought in gangmasters licensing and many other things.

 

[furnessvale]

It's hardly different to the way things operate in the UK. Private members bills, which furnessvale seems to want, hardly ever pass (in fact, I can't think of any that have!).

Furnessvale wants nothing of the sort.

I want legislation proposed by an elected government, based on a manifesto on which I voted, and to have the ability to vote them out of office if they do otherwise.

None of which I can do with the charade that is the EU.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Furnessvale wants nothing of the sort.

I want legislation proposed by an elected government, based on a manifesto on which I voted, and to have the ability to vote them out of office if they do otherwise.

None of which I can do with the charade that is the EU.

Did you read the manifestos for the MEP you presumably voted for? Saying it's a charade repeatedly isn't going to make it true. You're also perfectly welcome to vote for a different MEP if you don't like them - all of us only get to vote for 1 MP, so saying we can individually "vote out the current Westminster government" or whatever is just as true as saying we couldn't individually vote out MEPs.

Also presumably you do want more Private Members' Bills in parliament, since the way Westminster does things is very similar to the way the EU parliament does, despite using different names for things. Otherwise you're just applying a double standard.

 

[furnessvale]

Did you read the manifestos for the MEP you presumably voted for? Saying it's a charade repeatedly isn't going to make it true. You're also perfectly welcome to vote for a different MEP if you don't like them - all of us only get to vote for 1 MP, so saying we can individually "vote out the current Westminster government" or whatever is just as true as saying we couldn't individually vote out MEPs.

Also presumably you do want more Private Members' Bills in parliament, since the way Westminster does things is very similar to the way the EU parliament does, despite using different names for things. Otherwise you're just applying a double standard.

I'd much rather vote for the European Council and the Commission, you know, the people with the REAL power, not the puppets, but they are making sure we never get that opportunity!

 

[TheKnightWho]

I'd much rather vote for the European Council and the Commission, you know, the people with the REAL power, not the puppets, but they are making sure we never get that opportunity!

So you would rather vote for civil servants in the UK then? The people that actually write our legislation, for one thing...

 

[Barn]

I'd much rather vote for the European Council and the Commission, you know, the people with the REAL power, not the puppets, but they are making sure we never get that opportunity!

Although it seems like that would be a good thing, are you sure that you really want to vote for those bodies? Britain would always be in a minority and (whatever your views on nationalistic feeling), there are real differences between countries.

Britain has a much, much larger professional and financial services economy than other member states. Love it or hate it, it's important. It has a much higher percentage of non-EU trade than many other member states. Whatever you think about these things, they will not be served well by a popular vote across the whole of Europe.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

So you would rather vote for civil servants in the UK then? The people that actually write our legislation, for one thing...

Bills are written by parliamentary counsel who set out in legislative language the policy objectives of government departments. Those policy objectives are initiated and led by ministers.

The civil service cannot just start writing legislation on its own volition! (Pedant's exception: the Law Commission proposes reforms to the more academic elements of the law, but even this is a statutory independent body rather than a part of the civil service.)

In the EU, the Commission may simply make a proposal entirely of its own volition.

 

[miami]

I'd much rather vote for the European Council and the Commission, you know, the people with the REAL power, not the puppets, but they are making sure we never get that opportunity!

I suspect that's the national governments (like Cameron and Merkel) who don't want more power moved directly to the people.

That said, I'm not sure what the "puppets" are. The MEPs can block any laws. The national government representitives (the council) can also block any laws.

The MEPs can't propose them, but as the council can block them too, and it's the council (or rather the national governments that form the council) that appoint the commission, in practice it doesn't make much difference.

It's important to note that Tony Blair appointed Peter Mandleson as EU commissioner (effectively a cabinet member) in the same democratic method he appointed him as a minister in the Westminster government. I don't see how the argument about the council or commission being unelected works, when our own government (not parliament) is similarly unelected. Hell even America, where you vote for judges, school boards, and police cheifs, the secretaries are unelected.

I believe the commissioners have to be endorsed by the MEPs individually anyway, unlike say our own ministers, who Dave can appoint and fire on a whim.

There is of course the Sir Humphrey angle that the EU civil service wipes out any real meaning of democracy, just like the UK civil service. That relies on having strong ministers, which is probably more likely in the EU case.

As for MEPs being puppets, does anyone have the figures of %age legislation blocked by the MEPs vs %age legislation blocked by UK parliament? I suspect that the 320 MPs in westminster that aren't in the Conservative party (and between them representing over 60% of the country) are the ones who are puppets.

 

[Trog]

I suspect that the 320 MPs in westminster that aren't in the Conservative party (and between them representing over 60% of the country) are the ones who are puppets.

Why do the non Conservative MP's get to represent those who voted for neither their party or the Conservatives?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

This is the crux of the matter, isn't it? You're asking what a country is. A country is a collection of peoples who have agreed to share sovereignty. The demos in the democracy.

I believe that the British are a country - the people of Carlisle are broadly happy to pool their sovereignty with the people of Penzance and Swansea and Maidstone and Inverness. Despite your points 1-4 above, there is something that glues us together - a belief in our institutions, our culture, our society. Perhaps that something is irrational, but it is there.

We simply do not feel the same way towards the Portuguese and the Estonians and the Danes and the Bulgarians. That does not mean that they and we cannot be good friends and neighbours.

That's actually not a bad argument. My first thought when I read your post was something like, "Wow - at last, someone, apparently in the 'out' camp who actually appears to understand sovereignty issues"

However, there's one problem: You said "We simply do not feel...". Who do you mean by "we"? I suspect what you actually mean is that you personally do not feel that way. Personally, I have no problems with sharing sovereignty with Estonians or Danes etc., on issues for which it's appropriate - and reading this thread, it's evident that a lot of people here feel the same way.

For me, the fundamental issue is this: Issues vary in how local they are. Some things have little impact outside a village or a town and are therefore best dealt with by the local council (you're pooling sovereignty just with the local area in that case). Other things are more national in their impact and so best dealt with on a national level. Other things are inherently international in their impact and so arguably need to be dealt with on an international level (examples: regulating multinational companies, fighting much organized crime, reducing CO2 emissions). If you are point-blank refusing to share sovereignty with anyone outside the UK, then you make it much harder for any Government to deal with those kinds of issues.

In other words, I suspect the difference between you and I is that I would mainly choose who I'm prepared to share sovereignty with based on practicalities: At what level is each problem best solved? While you appear to be choosing based on an emotional feeling of solidarity with certain groups (people in the UK).

 

[Gutfright]

After a lot of debate, this thread could do with a poll being attached imo. I think the results could be interesting.

Is that something the mods/ OP could do?

 

[miami]

Why do the non Conservative MP's get to represent those who voted for neither their party or the Conservatives?

I was generalising and assuming that the majority of people who didn't vote conservative voted for one of the parties that are in parliament. Looking at the figures that's a fare assumption.

The figures are
11,299,609 voted Conservative (37%)
19,047,911 voted for a party that is represented in Parliament but not in government (62.1%)
350,005 voted for a party that is not represented in Parliament (1.1%)

The fact I voted UKIP and my UKIP candidate didn't get in doesn't mean that my views aren't represented in parliament by Carswell. Those views are painfully under-represented (unlike the UKIP views in the european parliament), but they are at least represented.

Interestingly enough, 15,408,817 of 16,454,950 votes in the UK EU elections went to parties that are represented by at least 1 MEP. That leaves 1,046,133 voting for parties not represented - that's 6.3%, so I guess you could say that as far as representing of views westminster is actually more democratic than Brussels.