Your government makes irreversible decisions all the time. Can you pretend that the debt doesn't exist, for instance? How about treaties with no escape clause?
Printable View
Your government makes irreversible decisions all the time. Can you pretend that the debt doesn't exist, for instance? How about treaties with no escape clause?
Spending can be cut, treaties can be exited. But by bundling up vast swathes of law with an undemocratic institution without any mandate it is circumventing the democratic process. If you don't like the Common Agricultural Policy. Tough, another nation can veto any cuts that might get proposed. The option to vote out the people setting our laws isn't there which is a bug problem.
Cutting spending doesn't negate existing debts. And some treaties can't be exited.
And yes, the point of the EU is to add another layer of government above the state. There's no inherent reason a British government is better than a European one. If your issue is the EU being too large and diverse, that's a reason for breaking up the UK and even England.
Never mind. I just realized that it is no use talking to you.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
In a new twist; the legality of the referendum may be challenged. In an interview last week a leader of one of the organisations behind the referendum literally said that he could care less about the treaty with Ukraine. That could mean the signatures in support of a referendum were collected under valse pretenses. Which is a violation of the law on referenda.
Getting rid of a result on a technicality will surely improve the public perception of not being ignored :p
Totally. And what does it matter what one leader cares about?
Even ignoring the fact that I supported Scottish Independence, there is true democracy in the UK which is lacking in the EU, so that's different. Don't conflate the EU with the US Federal government, it isn't the same at all. Imagine that your laws were being set by Mexicans (who have freedom to move to anywhere in North America they want) instead. Without a democratic mandate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Flixy is completely right of course.
Hazir you may only find it to be of no use to talk because what you're saying is worthless and doesn't have a leg to stand on perhaps.
Or as I usually say, if everyone else seems to be an asshole it's usually because you are being an ass yourself.
EU is run by directly elected politicians in the parliament, and representatives of all elected governments, right? So it's not entirely undemocratic.
No it's not. It's ran by a hodge-podge of unelected bureaucrats and member nations etc with the Parliament not only having no true European demos (we still vote on national party lines) but even the deeply flawed European Parliament doesn't run the EU. Neither the Commission nor the European Council are elected.
As for the European Parliament it is not only not running the EU but for what power it has it is very deeply flawed. It is "elected" using a terrible voting system and then power is won on a very questionable basis. For instance who is the President of the European Parliament? Martin Schulz. How was he elected, you'd think surely it was by winning the European Parliament elections? No it was because he lost the European Parliament elections that he became President.
You couldn't make this up.
----------------
As for the European Council, the national governments are elected to run their own nations, not each other.
It may indeed. But it was more than a bit stupid to admit ulterior motives that blatantly. After all the result isn't binding to start with, so a conviction could give the government an excuse not to bother with an adjusted agreement.
As it is not binding, the government doesn't need an excuse. What it needs is a believable explanaition.
Indeed. To reject the will of the people on a figleaf is only going to anger people further.
You mean bring set by the federal government, over which Georgians have some, but clearly not much, influence? Your laws aren't being created by the Germans or the Belgians. They're being created by the EU, an organization over which the UK has more influence than Georgia does over the US.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
And it's dishonest to talk about lack of EU democracy when it's the eurosceptics, led by the UK, who have blocked most steps at closer and more accountable union.
The main reason for the EU Parliament's lack of real power is the unwillingness of countries like the UK to cede it power. The existing EU institutions are more than capable of representing the will of the European public in a democratic manner.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flixy
Not really. Democratic accountability in the Federal US (and the power that goes with it) rests with the POTUS (that is directly[ish] elected by Georgians and others in an election designed to elect the POTUS), the Senate (that is directly elected by Georgians and others in an election designed to elect the Senate) and the House of Representatives (that is directly elected by Georgians and others in an election designed to elect the Representatives).Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Power in the EU primarily rests with the Commission (unelected) and the European Council (not at all elected in an election designed to elect the European Council).
The two are completely unrelated.
The cause is irrelevant, and I don't align myself with the eurosceptics. There should be no power without responsibility or accountability. It is the fault of everyone who has allowed this situation to transpire that the power has been transferred without accountability.Quote:
And it's dishonest to talk about lack of EU democracy when it's the eurosceptics, led by the UK, who have blocked most steps at closer and more accountable union.
Though the skeptics are least responsible for this as they've opposed both the hand over of power AND the accountability. They have been logically consistent. The power was transferred despite not because of the skeptics and it is those who have allowed that power to go without accountability to go with it that are responsible.
The skeptics want power to return to those who are fully accountable. They are honest and legitimate unlike those who fudge the situation because it's too difficult to resolve otherwise.
Let's see who has power in the EU.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
The European Council: composed of the heads of state/government of the EU states. Britain has direct control over one person there, but not the rest. That one person is supposed to represent British interests. US equivalent = Senate. I vote for the Georgian senators. They represent Georgia's interests. I have 0 influence over the other 98 Senators, and they have quite a lot of power over me.
Council of Ministers: composed of ministers from most European states, who are effectively the heads of the EU bureaucracy. You don't vote for your minister, though you do vote for the party that appoints him/her. Equivalent: US secretaries. I vote for the president. I have no direct say over who becomes Secretary of State, Defense, etc.
European commission: effectively, the bureaucracy. You get indirect say over who us one of the commissioners. Again, the equivalent is the US bureaucracy. I vote for the president. I hope he appoints a good Secretary of State, who will then appoint a good under-secretary for European Affairs. That under-secretary is technically meant to represent the bureaucracy, not the US president. Which means my influence over that person is further weakened. Same as your influence over the actions of the European commission.
European parliament: equivalent to the US House. Only difference is you haven't given it enough powers to be relevant.
European Court of Justice: each state gets a judge, who are then meant to be neutral. Equivalent: US Supreme Court. In fact, you at least have more direct influence over who one of the judges is. As a Georgian, I have 0 influence over the makeup of the Supreme Court. I get a say over who the president is and who two of the Senators are (both with a role in choosing SC justices), but I'm 1 out of 200,000,000 eligible voters and my senators are but 2 of 100. You get 1 out of 28.
There's no EU president, but that's because the Eurosceptics don't want one. Furthermore, if we think of the EU as a parliamentary system, there's no democratic deficit merely because of the absence of this position.
You get direct say over the European Parliament and indirect say through the British Parliament. If you don't like what the British representatives do to represent your interests in the EU, vote for a different party. And the reason eurocrats have so much power is because the EU has numerous responsibilities but Eurosceptics aren't willing to allow the creation of elected bodies to carry out those responsibilities.Quote:
The cause is irrelevant, and I don't align myself with the eurosceptics. There should be no power without responsibility or accountability. It is the fault of everyone who has allowed this situation to transpire that the power has been transferred without accountability.
I expect LF to come out to accuse you of being obsessed with the EU.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
By the way your description left out the role of the EP in the selection of the president of the Coniston. So it is a bit outdated.
Sorry. :o And the thing, I'm pretty sure the European federalists would be more than happy to have directly elected European officials with more power.
As far as I am concerned only if that is combined with the EP getting the right of initiative.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
The Senate are not equivalent. The Senate, since the 17th Amendment at least, are elected to the Senate with the Senate being the reason they were elected.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
The Council are not elected for the sake of going to the Council. There is no equivalence whatsoever.
Not to forget that the US is a country and the EU is not. We have our own Parliament in the UK.
Your elected President selects Secretary of State etc (though I prefer our system where they are generally MPs).Quote:
Council of Ministers: composed of ministers from most European states, who are effectively the heads of the EU bureaucracy. You don't vote for your minister, though you do vote for the party that appoints him/her. Equivalent: US secretaries. I vote for the president. I have no direct say over who becomes Secretary of State, Defense, etc.
Not to forget that again the US is a country and the EU is not. We have our own Cabinet in the UK.
Agreed and whose fault is that? It is the fault of those who chose to give powers to the EU without accountability.Quote:
European parliament: equivalent to the US House. Only difference is you haven't given it enough powers to be relevant.
Not to forget that again the US is a country and the EU is not. We have our own Parliament in the UK.
The ECJ is more overtly political. The fact that nations have their own representative is a bad thing not a good one. SCOTUS are meant to be neutral and while they have their own judicial leanings they are consistent in that.Quote:
European Court of Justice: each state gets a judge, who are then meant to be neutral. Equivalent: US Supreme Court. In fact, you at least have more direct influence over who one of the judges is. As a Georgian, I have 0 influence over the makeup of the Supreme Court. I get a say over who the president is and who two of the Senators are (both with a role in choosing SC justices), but I'm 1 out of 200,000,000 eligible voters and my senators are but 2 of 100. You get 1 out of 28.
Not to forget that again the US is a country and the EU is not. We have our own Supreme Court in the UK.
There are four EU Presidents actually. Furthermore the EU is not as the Eurosceptics want, the Eurosceptics are never the ones who gave powers to the EU. It is the Europhiles who did that. The Europhiles need to own the democratic accountability for the powers they gave away against the sceptics wishes, not blame sceptics for doing badly that which the sceptics said should not be done :rolleyes:Quote:
There's no EU president, but that's because the Eurosceptics don't want one. Furthermore, if we think of the EU as a parliamentary system, there's no democratic deficit merely because of the absence of this position.
And if we are outvoted? Question for you on how many times under QMV has the UK voted against a proposed law? Under how many times under QMV has the UK voted against a proposed law and it has been rejected?Quote:
You get direct say over the European Parliament and indirect say through the British Parliament. If you don't like what the British representatives do to represent your interests in the EU, vote for a different party.
Again the UK is its own nation, it is not a state within a federal government.
Bullshit. If the Eurosceptics were in control the whole time then the EU wouldn't have the powers in the first place.Quote:
And the reason eurocrats have so much power is because the EU has numerous responsibilities but Eurosceptics aren't willing to allow the creation of elected bodies to carry out those responsibilities.