Brexit Celebrations
Discussion
jonnyb said:
I would agree. Every exchange I have had with people who have voted to leave has shown a fundamental lack of understanding of EU democracy.
The fact that the EU institutions are more democratic than our own comes as a shock to most.
You may find the discussion here a tad more informed...The fact that the EU institutions are more democratic than our own comes as a shock to most.
For instance, when stating that the EU institutions are more democratic than our own, are you inferring that the unelected House being the only route for a Bill to be tabled, as opposed to our system where it is the elected House, is a better solution and more democratic?
I'd find that hard to stomach, where we have a directly accountable at ballot box legislature tabling process, ratified by the unelected house.
The EU has the exact opposite, where the elected house of the EU institutions can only ratify and suggest amendments to Bills presented by the unaccountable to the electorate members.
Oh, and are we also talking about the level of representation per capita, which again is less even than ours before thr boundary realignments that will occur to even out constituency populations prior to the next election: http://hum.port.ac.uk/europeanstudieshub/learning/...
I'd love to hear your rationale for such a strong assertion that seems to fly in the face of the available information.
Well, start here:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_deficit...
We have a single elected house, elected by a first past the post system. This means that while producing strong majority government, it hardly represents the majority of voters. I think our current government enjoys about 35% of the popular vote. Would have to look up the exact figure.
We then have an appointed second house, roughly appointed by the first, but then including the clergy(!?!) Then above all this we have a monarch who was born into the job.
So our single elected house, that doesn't represent the majority of voters, produces laws, that are then ratified by a house over which we have no democratic control, those laws are then written into law by one single person who has no other right to the job than by birth.
Compare then to the EU.
A Council or Ministers appointed by individual countries national governments. An appointed commission, appointed by individual countries democratically elected governments, held to account by a directly elected Parliament, with a president appointed by the single biggest representative group with in the parliament. Then we have the European Parliment. Directly elected by the population, using a version of proportional representation to accurately represent the majority of voters.
May be we should start a thread about republicanism.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_deficit...
We have a single elected house, elected by a first past the post system. This means that while producing strong majority government, it hardly represents the majority of voters. I think our current government enjoys about 35% of the popular vote. Would have to look up the exact figure.
We then have an appointed second house, roughly appointed by the first, but then including the clergy(!?!) Then above all this we have a monarch who was born into the job.
So our single elected house, that doesn't represent the majority of voters, produces laws, that are then ratified by a house over which we have no democratic control, those laws are then written into law by one single person who has no other right to the job than by birth.
Compare then to the EU.
A Council or Ministers appointed by individual countries national governments. An appointed commission, appointed by individual countries democratically elected governments, held to account by a directly elected Parliament, with a president appointed by the single biggest representative group with in the parliament. Then we have the European Parliment. Directly elected by the population, using a version of proportional representation to accurately represent the majority of voters.
May be we should start a thread about republicanism.
Edited by jonnyb on Monday 20th March 20:15
jonnyb said:
Well, start here:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_deficit...
Wikipedia has a neutral POV, so it's really rather difficult to argue a point of belief from an article such as that.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_deficit...
Let's assert some things.
1)The directly elected Parliament cannot propose laws
2)The indirectly elected Council cannot propose laws
3)The appointed commission can propose laws
All correct?
jonnyb said:
Well, start here:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_deficit...
You're going to seriously claim a lack of education about the democratic processes of the UK and EU within Leave voters then point me to a wiki page? Blimey.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_deficit...
Especially when it is one where virtually every comparison is with the United States, as though they are a paragon of democratic virtue (see the recent role of the Electoral College over the populous democratic vote), and makes no comparison to our version of democracy except for a single quote by a Lib Dem MEP. Which is the claim you made - the EU is more democratic than the UK.
None of my points are refuted, nor is the wiki page a particularly good one - full of 'some say, others disagree' with little in the way of data.
Ignoring the rather large elephant of only 80% of amendments voted for by those voted in by the electorate (and nearly 30% for the 'controversial' ones! Nearly a whole third!) being successful in influencing the legislature tabled by the unelected - the simplest measure of democratic fairness in a representative democracy is the number of citizens per representative. Hence the term rotten Borough, one that we removed from our representative democracy a good few hundred years ago and have only improved on since.
Sway said:
jonnyb said:
Well, start here:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_deficit...
You're going to seriously claim a lack of education about the democratic processes of the UK and EU within Leave voters then point me to a wiki page? Blimey.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_deficit...
Especially when it is one where virtually every comparison is with the United States, as though they are a paragon of democratic virtue (see the recent role of the Electoral College over the populous democratic vote), and makes no comparison to our version of democracy except for a single quote by a Lib Dem MEP. Which is the claim you made - the EU is more democratic than the UK.
None of my points are refuted, nor is the wiki page a particularly good one - full of 'some say, others disagree' with little in the way of data.
Ignoring the rather large elephant of only 80% of amendments voted for by those voted in by the electorate (and nearly 30% for the 'controversial' ones! Nearly a whole third!) being successful in influencing the legislature tabled by the unelected - the simplest measure of democratic fairness in a representative democracy is the number of citizens per representative. Hence the term rotten Borough, one that we removed from our representative democracy a good few hundred years ago and have only improved on since.
By your analogy the most democratic parts of the UK system must be Parish Councils, with the democratic deficiency increasing in proportion to size.
That makes sense.
Going into it further, you and I elect our representative to the Council of Ministers, You and I elect representatives who appoint the European Commission, you and I then elect members to the European Parliment. So you and I have control, at the ballot box, of the entire legislative process. It's a shame that the same can not be said about our own national government.
Edited by jonnyb on Monday 20th March 20:30
davepoth said:
jonnyb said:
Well, start here:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_deficit...
Wikipedia has a neutral POV, so it's really rather difficult to argue a point of belief from an article such as that.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_deficit...
Let's assert some things.
1)The directly elected Parliament cannot propose laws
2)The indirectly elected Council cannot propose laws
3)The appointed commission can propose laws
All correct?
Which is pretty much the same way our national government works. Or did you think our politicians actually wrote the laws that are put before Parliament?
jonnyb said:
I have added to my post to better explain my POV.
By your analogy the most democratic parts of the UK system must be Parish Councils, with the democratic deficiency increasing in proportion to size.
That makes sense.
You mention first past the post leading to a strong government that only represents a small percentage of the electorate - you do remember the 2010 result? Plus May's majority isn't exactly cast in stone.By your analogy the most democratic parts of the UK system must be Parish Councils, with the democratic deficiency increasing in proportion to size.
That makes sense.
What does happen is that legislature can be tabled by any one of those representatives. Bills proposed by members of the Opposition and other parties are voted on as well as those by the Party or Parties forming the Government. They are voted on by representatives that each represent the same number of people (note, it doesn't matter how many citizens each represents, the fairness is that each is equal so far as is practically possible). Perfect democracy comes when each citizen has an equal voice, and represents themselves. However, for many reasons this isn't practical, so there is a balance between the power of an individual vote, and the costs of enabling that voice to be heard. Hence the current number of MPs, soon to be reduced. However, few complain about not being able to interact with or influence thier parliamentary representative...
The appointed House has a different mix of representation, based currently on the historical trends of representation within the Commons. Hence why the proportion of Lib Dem Lords is much higher than the percentage of current Lib Dem MPs, giving a longer term balance of appointed representation. They can only suggest amendments, and the Queen can only sign legislation passed by the Commons.
The EU has none of this.
There are some nations with significantly less citizens per MEP than others. That means that each citizen has a disproportionate level of representation. Some have a far louder 'voice' per capita than others, meaning that the power of each individual vote is not equal.
Appointees are the only people able to table legislation. If the populous of the EU nations strongly desire something, there is no way for their representatives to be able to attempt to make this law.
It's a b
disation of the premise of democracy, giving people the false perception that their vote has any influence. Hence the very low turnout and electoral disengagement across the EU for EU Parliament elections.jonnyb said:
All correct.
Which is pretty much the same way our national government works. Or did you think our politicians actually wrote the laws that are put before Parliament?
It's the exact opposite. Whilst they may not write the wording of the Bills tabled, within the UK they can only be put forward for parliamentary voting by a directly elected representative.Which is pretty much the same way our national government works. Or did you think our politicians actually wrote the laws that are put before Parliament?
So not the same way at all.
Sway said:
jonnyb said:
I have added to my post to better explain my POV.
By your analogy the most democratic parts of the UK system must be Parish Councils, with the democratic deficiency increasing in proportion to size.
That makes sense.
You mention first past the post leading to a strong government that only represents a small percentage of the electorate - you do remember the 2010 result? Plus May's majority isn't exactly cast in stone.By your analogy the most democratic parts of the UK system must be Parish Councils, with the democratic deficiency increasing in proportion to size.
That makes sense.
What does happen is that legislature can be tabled by any one of those representatives. Bills proposed by members of the Opposition and other parties are voted on as well as those by the Party or Parties forming the Government. They are voted on by representatives that each represent the same number of people (note, it doesn't matter how many citizens each represents, the fairness is that each is equal so far as is practically possible). Perfect democracy comes when each citizen has an equal voice, and represents themselves. However, for many reasons this isn't practical, so there is a balance between the power of an individual vote, and the costs of enabling that voice to be heard. Hence the current number of MPs, soon to be reduced. However, few complain about not being able to interact with or influence thier parliamentary representative...
The appointed House has a different mix of representation, based currently on the historical trends of representation within the Commons. Hence why the proportion of Lib Dem Lords is much higher than the percentage of current Lib Dem MPs, giving a longer term balance of appointed representation. They can only suggest amendments, and the Queen can only sign legislation passed by the Commons.
The EU has none of this.
There are some nations with significantly less citizens per MEP than others. That means that each citizen has a disproportionate level of representation. Some have a far louder 'voice' per capita than others, meaning that the power of each individual vote is not equal.
Appointees are the only people able to table legislation. If the populous of the EU nations strongly desire something, there is no way for their representatives to be able to attempt to make this law.
It's a b
disation of the premise of democracy, giving people the false perception that their vote has any influence. Hence the very low turnout and electoral disengagement across the EU for EU Parliament elections.To me it's more representative of the population while still taking into account the interests of national government.
You also fail to mention what else the EU doesn't have. An unappointed clergy in the second chamber, and above all an unappointed/unelected head of state.
As for democracy here, private members bills are hardly ever passed, so hardly a democratic asset, and the current conservative government has under 37% of the popular vote. So the VAST majority neither voted for or want Mrs May's government. Yet it is still the largest party, and controls the democratic process. If a large part of the population wanted a bill passed, but that part wasn't a conservative core vote, do you think it would ever see the light of day?
What we have in this country is a b
disation of the premise of democracy, giving people the false perception that their vote has any influence. 
Sway said:
jonnyb said:
All correct.
Which is pretty much the same way our national government works. Or did you think our politicians actually wrote the laws that are put before Parliament?
It's the exact opposite. Whilst they may not write the wording of the Bills tabled, within the UK they can only be put forward for parliamentary voting by a directly elected representative.Which is pretty much the same way our national government works. Or did you think our politicians actually wrote the laws that are put before Parliament?
So not the same way at all.
At least in the EU it is only under very specific circumstances that a law doesn't have to be ratified by both houses.
jonnyb said:
That's your point of view.
To me it's more representative of the population while still taking into account the interests of national government.
You also fail to mention what else the EU doesn't have. An unappointed clergy in the second chamber, and above all an unappointed/unelected head of state.
As for democracy here, private members bills are hardly ever passed, so hardly a democratic asset, and the current conservative government has under 37% of the popular vote. So the VAST majority neither voted for or want Mrs May's government. Yet it is still the largest party, and controls the democratic process. If a large part of the population wanted a bill passed, but that part wasn't a conservative core vote, do you think it would ever see the light of day?
What we have in this country is a bdisation of the premise of democracy, giving people the false perception that their vote has any influence.
A system that is "representative of the people while taking into account the interests of national government" is by your own words further from the "voice of the people" that is the very definition of democracy. To me it's more representative of the population while still taking into account the interests of national government.
You also fail to mention what else the EU doesn't have. An unappointed clergy in the second chamber, and above all an unappointed/unelected head of state.
As for democracy here, private members bills are hardly ever passed, so hardly a democratic asset, and the current conservative government has under 37% of the popular vote. So the VAST majority neither voted for or want Mrs May's government. Yet it is still the largest party, and controls the democratic process. If a large part of the population wanted a bill passed, but that part wasn't a conservative core vote, do you think it would ever see the light of day?
What we have in this country is a b
disation of the premise of democracy, giving people the false perception that their vote has any influence. There may be clergy in the HoL, however they are a tiny percentage, and as influential as any other appointee, which is to say not really influential at all...
The Queen trying to pass legislation that has not been passed to get by the majority of the Commons would see a constitutional crisis we've not seen since the English Civil War. Whilst technically possible it ain't happening.
Speaking of which, neither is a private members bill in the EU institutions, as they are impossible - rather than merely unlikely within our approach.
You started this train by clearly stating that not a single leave voter you've interacted with knew how our democracy works compared to the EU's, and that they are all shocked when you've explained how the EU is more democratic than the UK.
So far you've given some direct contradictions of that assertion, and a few inconsequential nuances of our centuries old system.
We're not all as ignorant as you made out, and your arguments are far from watertight when making such a bold assertion when referring to the oldest parliamentary democracy in the world...
Inconsequential nuances, that's one way to explain a huge democratic deficit!
Just because our system is centuries old, doesn't make it any good.
You say the clergy are not influential, just like any other appointee. So what is the function of our second house, if is has no influence?
At least in the EU both houses have influence.
1707 was the last time the monarch enacted legislation against the will of parliament, although Queen Victoria came close on several occasions. She actually kept a government in power against the will of Parliment. So we don't have to go back the the Civil War to find the precedent.
Unfortunately, constitutionally she still holds all the aces, and has total control of the legislature. When was he last time you voted for her?
Would now be a good time to point out, in all this anti-EU debate, that she's actual German, and her surname is Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (not quite correct, but you get the jist)
I started this train by pointing out that the people I have had this discussion with don't understand the democratic superiority of the EU system when compared to our own. Usually due to a lack of understanding how democracy in the EU and in our own country works.
Your posts give me no cause to change that assertion.
Just because our system is centuries old, doesn't make it any good.
You say the clergy are not influential, just like any other appointee. So what is the function of our second house, if is has no influence?
At least in the EU both houses have influence.
1707 was the last time the monarch enacted legislation against the will of parliament, although Queen Victoria came close on several occasions. She actually kept a government in power against the will of Parliment. So we don't have to go back the the Civil War to find the precedent.
Unfortunately, constitutionally she still holds all the aces, and has total control of the legislature. When was he last time you voted for her?
Would now be a good time to point out, in all this anti-EU debate, that she's actual German, and her surname is Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (not quite correct, but you get the jist)
I started this train by pointing out that the people I have had this discussion with don't understand the democratic superiority of the EU system when compared to our own. Usually due to a lack of understanding how democracy in the EU and in our own country works.
Your posts give me no cause to change that assertion.
Individually the clergy have no power, they make up a tiny percentage, as do the Othery individual appointees. The opposite of the power the EU appointees have.
I never said that the last time the monarch enacted legislation against the will of parliament was the ECW, merely that if it were to happen the constitutional crisis would be that big - as evidenced by the 300 years since it last happened...
I have no issue that her heritage from a few generations ago were German, she's not, and I'd vote to retain the monarchy in any republican referendum. Not supporting the institution of the EU does not make me racist or anti-European. Indeed my leave vote was in part influenced by the destruction of the futures of the European youth especially within the poorer states of the Eurozone.
You've shown a fair few comprehension failures in your last post, and as yet haven't come up with a single justification for an inequality in the strength of each vote, in direct contradiction of the definition of democracy. Your assertion is baseless until you can overcome that.
I never said that the last time the monarch enacted legislation against the will of parliament was the ECW, merely that if it were to happen the constitutional crisis would be that big - as evidenced by the 300 years since it last happened...
I have no issue that her heritage from a few generations ago were German, she's not, and I'd vote to retain the monarchy in any republican referendum. Not supporting the institution of the EU does not make me racist or anti-European. Indeed my leave vote was in part influenced by the destruction of the futures of the European youth especially within the poorer states of the Eurozone.
You've shown a fair few comprehension failures in your last post, and as yet haven't come up with a single justification for an inequality in the strength of each vote, in direct contradiction of the definition of democracy. Your assertion is baseless until you can overcome that.
Dindoit said:
ATG said:
sidicks said:
ATG said:
We already had democratic control. It shows an embarrassing lack of understanding to think that we didn't. We've cut our noses off to spite our faces.
Like 'democratic control' of our immigration policy you mean?Sway said:
Individually the clergy have no power, they make up a tiny percentage, as do the Othery individual appointees. The opposite of the power the EU appointees have.
I never said that the last time the monarch enacted legislation against the will of parliament was the ECW, merely that if it were to happen the constitutional crisis would be that big - as evidenced by the 300 years since it last happened...
I have no issue that her heritage from a few generations ago were German, she's not, and I'd vote to retain the monarchy in any republican referendum. Not supporting the institution of the EU does not make me racist or anti-European. Indeed my leave vote was in part influenced by the destruction of the futures of the European youth especially within the poorer states of the Eurozone.
You've shown a fair few comprehension failures in your last post, and as yet haven't come up with a single justification for an inequality in the strength of each vote, in direct contradiction of the definition of democracy. Your assertion is baseless until you can overcome that.
Your wasting your time.I never said that the last time the monarch enacted legislation against the will of parliament was the ECW, merely that if it were to happen the constitutional crisis would be that big - as evidenced by the 300 years since it last happened...
I have no issue that her heritage from a few generations ago were German, she's not, and I'd vote to retain the monarchy in any republican referendum. Not supporting the institution of the EU does not make me racist or anti-European. Indeed my leave vote was in part influenced by the destruction of the futures of the European youth especially within the poorer states of the Eurozone.
You've shown a fair few comprehension failures in your last post, and as yet haven't come up with a single justification for an inequality in the strength of each vote, in direct contradiction of the definition of democracy. Your assertion is baseless until you can overcome that.
Better not mention the other Elephant in the room which is the incredible level of power held by the Commission President. One might not have a problem with that if such persons were just highly agreeable figure heads (as I believe they were supposed to be by the original intent of the EU setup), but what about when they have a reputation as an alcoholic who has skeletons in the closet involving spying on politicians in their own country, and of course famously making a flippant comment about lying.
https://www.channel4.com/news/jean-claude-juncker-...
.... a man whom could never in a million years been elected by this countries people ended up the most powerful man on the continent.
Its a real shame though because rather than leaving we should have been pushing hard to reform the EU both politically and economically. Sadly with Conservative and UKIP MEPs that was never going to happen, its a hard thing to accept but there was an inevitability about Brexit. This country, or at least those on the right of UK politics were never really interested in the project and only went along with it for economic gain.
There's no definitive measure of how democratic any system of government is, so putting people's rejection of the EU down to them being ignorant is a rather odd approach.
There's definitely more to it than just election systems and appointment procedures.
Perhaps the greatest democratic failing of the EU is that there is no EU demos. There were no institutions which caught the public imagination and no issues which sparked an EU wide popular debate.
European elections were only ever fought by national parties on national issues and covered by national media.
Ultimately if the population doesn't accept the institutions in the first place then they can't be democratic. The fact that the most cited reason for voting leave in the referendum was to have decision making in Britain rather than Brussels makes a mockery of the notion of the EU as a democracy.
There's definitely more to it than just election systems and appointment procedures.
Perhaps the greatest democratic failing of the EU is that there is no EU demos. There were no institutions which caught the public imagination and no issues which sparked an EU wide popular debate.
European elections were only ever fought by national parties on national issues and covered by national media.
Ultimately if the population doesn't accept the institutions in the first place then they can't be democratic. The fact that the most cited reason for voting leave in the referendum was to have decision making in Britain rather than Brussels makes a mockery of the notion of the EU as a democracy.
Sway said:
Individually the clergy have no power, they make up a tiny percentage, as do the Othery individual appointees. The opposite of the power the EU appointees have.
I never said that the last time the monarch enacted legislation against the will of parliament was the ECW, merely that if it were to happen the constitutional crisis would be that big - as evidenced by the 300 years since it last happened...
I have no issue that her heritage from a few generations ago were German, she's not, and I'd vote to retain the monarchy in any republican referendum. Not supporting the institution of the EU does not make me racist or anti-European. Indeed my leave vote was in part influenced by the destruction of the futures of the European youth especially within the poorer states of the Eurozone.
You've shown a fair few comprehension failures in your last post, and as yet haven't come up with a single justification for an inequality in the strength of each vote, in direct contradiction of the definition of democracy. Your assertion is baseless until you can overcome that.
And you have shown a complete lack of understanding, but let's try again.I never said that the last time the monarch enacted legislation against the will of parliament was the ECW, merely that if it were to happen the constitutional crisis would be that big - as evidenced by the 300 years since it last happened...
I have no issue that her heritage from a few generations ago were German, she's not, and I'd vote to retain the monarchy in any republican referendum. Not supporting the institution of the EU does not make me racist or anti-European. Indeed my leave vote was in part influenced by the destruction of the futures of the European youth especially within the poorer states of the Eurozone.
You've shown a fair few comprehension failures in your last post, and as yet haven't come up with a single justification for an inequality in the strength of each vote, in direct contradiction of the definition of democracy. Your assertion is baseless until you can overcome that.
Here's the situation in the U.K.
A directly elected primary chamber (we will come to how in a bit), the biggest party in that chamber forms a government, the government then issues policy's for the civil service to write into law, the civil service then send these back to the government to set before Parliament. Parliament amends or not the act, then sends it to the second chamber, totally unelected, some of it based on religious grounds, and hereditary grounds, some of it appointed. The Act then gets bounced back and forth until a consensus can be reached. The Act is then passed to a totally unelected, unappointed, head of state for ratification. It then becomes law. Or if you can't be bothered with all of that you just issue a statutory instrument and completely bypass any oversight (which is how the majority of things are done).
To top this, how we get out elected chamber is worthy of mention. First past the post. If I were a labour voter in Mrs Mays constituency for how much would my vote count? If I were a conservative voter in Leeds let's say, would my voice be heard? First past the post disenfranchises large sections of the population and leaves them with a vote that counts for nothing and no voice.
Contrast that with the EU
EU commission proposes laws, the commission is made up of people appointed by the elected representatives of member states, and is overseen in its entirety by the directly elected parliament. It's the comissions job to interpret EU policy, much the same as our own civil service.
The laws are then sent to the Council of ministers and the EU Parliment, the EU Council is made up of directly elected representatives of member states, the Parliment is directly elected by us, the EU Population. The law is then sent back and forth until consensus is reached or the law is abandoned. If consensus is reached the law is enacted. At every stage the law has to be passed by either someone who has been appointed by a directly elected representative, or a directly elected representative themselves.
In addition the EU Parliment is elected by proportional representation ensuring everyone gets as equal a voice as possible.
Do you see where our version falls down and the EUs stands up?
To top all this the EU is an international body, not a state as such. And is therefore way more democratic than any other international body. We as a state, should hold ourselves to a higher degree of democracy than an international body, unfortunately we fall far short.
jonnyb said:
And you have shown a complete lack of understanding, but let's try again.
Here's the situation in the U.K.
A directly elected primary chamber (we will come to how in a bit), the biggest party in that chamber forms a government, the government then issues policy's for the civil service to write into law, the civil service then send these back to the government to set before Parliament. Parliament amends or not the act, then sends it to the second chamber, totally unelected, some of it based on religious grounds, and hereditary grounds, some of it appointed. The Act then gets bounced back and forth until a consensus can be reached. The Act is then passed to a totally unelected, unappointed, head of state for ratification. It then becomes law. Or if you can't be bothered with all of that you just issue a statutory instrument and completely bypass any oversight (which is how the majority of things are done).
To top this, how we get out elected chamber is worthy of mention. First past the post. If I were a labour voter in Mrs Mays constituency for how much would my vote count? If I were a conservative voter in Leeds let's say, would my voice be heard? First past the post disenfranchises large sections of the population and leaves them with a vote that counts for nothing and no voice.
Contrast that with the EU
EU commission proposes laws, the commission is made up of people appointed by the elected representatives of member states, and is overseen in its entirety by the directly elected parliament. It's the comissions job to interpret EU policy, much the same as our own civil service.
The laws are then sent to the Council of ministers and the EU Parliment, the EU Council is made up of directly elected representatives of member states, the Parliment is directly elected by us, the EU Population. The law is then sent back and forth until consensus is reached or the law is abandoned. If consensus is reached the law is enacted. At every stage the law has to be passed by either someone who has been appointed by a directly elected representative, or a directly elected representative themselves.
In addition the EU Parliment is elected by proportional representation ensuring everyone gets as equal a voice as possible.
Do you see where our version falls down and the EUs stands up?
To top all this the EU is an international body, not a state as such. And is therefore way more democratic than any other international body. We as a state, should hold ourselves to a higher degree of democracy than an international body, unfortunately we fall far short.
As said before, we are leaving, if you like the EU so much surely you'll be moving there to live and work...??Here's the situation in the U.K.
A directly elected primary chamber (we will come to how in a bit), the biggest party in that chamber forms a government, the government then issues policy's for the civil service to write into law, the civil service then send these back to the government to set before Parliament. Parliament amends or not the act, then sends it to the second chamber, totally unelected, some of it based on religious grounds, and hereditary grounds, some of it appointed. The Act then gets bounced back and forth until a consensus can be reached. The Act is then passed to a totally unelected, unappointed, head of state for ratification. It then becomes law. Or if you can't be bothered with all of that you just issue a statutory instrument and completely bypass any oversight (which is how the majority of things are done).
To top this, how we get out elected chamber is worthy of mention. First past the post. If I were a labour voter in Mrs Mays constituency for how much would my vote count? If I were a conservative voter in Leeds let's say, would my voice be heard? First past the post disenfranchises large sections of the population and leaves them with a vote that counts for nothing and no voice.
Contrast that with the EU
EU commission proposes laws, the commission is made up of people appointed by the elected representatives of member states, and is overseen in its entirety by the directly elected parliament. It's the comissions job to interpret EU policy, much the same as our own civil service.
The laws are then sent to the Council of ministers and the EU Parliment, the EU Council is made up of directly elected representatives of member states, the Parliment is directly elected by us, the EU Population. The law is then sent back and forth until consensus is reached or the law is abandoned. If consensus is reached the law is enacted. At every stage the law has to be passed by either someone who has been appointed by a directly elected representative, or a directly elected representative themselves.
In addition the EU Parliment is elected by proportional representation ensuring everyone gets as equal a voice as possible.
Do you see where our version falls down and the EUs stands up?
To top all this the EU is an international body, not a state as such. And is therefore way more democratic than any other international body. We as a state, should hold ourselves to a higher degree of democracy than an international body, unfortunately we fall far short.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff