EU Referendum: Protecting The Democracy

[AlmostCivilized]

Hello World,

I am troubled on how to cast my vote despite simply wanting to vote for democratic accountability. This is my trouble:

The UK has the oldest surviving democratic system, and is one of few in which power is bestowed on a Parliament that operates without laws enshrined in an inherited constitution. The UK is the successful protector of democracy in Europe.

The EU bares little resemblance to European democratic governments. On one hand the EU Parliament is privileged to hear of EU projects, but it is largely powerless to intervene in them. Reasons for not empowering the EU Parliament include circular arguments based on the belief that it cannot be trusted with power because it consists of politicians who won seats out of electorate apathy, and that apathy stems from the parliament being powerless.

True power in the EU resides with the appointed European Commission, which does not answer to an electorate. Academics universally agree that the EU is not democratically accountable, and that the UK's ability to self-govern is being gradually eroded by the growing mass of EU regulations.

Boris Johnson (former major of London) started on-topic with views of protecting the UK model from the EU model, but the Leave Campaign has since become distracted by issues of job security. I understand their motive, but I will not gamble my vote on dynamic systems that are regulated by chaos theory. If job creation mattered more to me than political morality then I would simply argue that the European Investment Bank capitalises most major UK infrastructure projects including London's Crossrail, and that would probably determine my vote. However, my vote is based on the concrete and moral issue of democratic accountability.

PM Cameron responds aggressively on-topic with the notion that British troops were sent to fight in Europe for democracy; arguing that the UK can only champion democracy in Europe by remaining politically vocal inside the EU. Full marks for delivering emotionally persuasive banter, but his line of reasoning leads me to ask: "What are the EU Commission's actual plans for reforming EU democratic accountability?"

No side in the campaign has addressed this question to my satisfaction. The EU is a large and complex bureaucratic collection of institutions producing vast amounts of literature and this is just one view from the EU on this topic, courtesy of the European Commission: "Progress ... first, towards a genuine economic union ... second, financial union ... third, fiscal union ... And finally, towards a political union that provides a foundation for all of the above through genuine democratic accountability, legitimacy, and institutional strengthening"

Warning signs include democratic accountability being dependent on institutional strengthening, and democratic accountability not being their foremost priority. One concern for my vote is that this proposed roadmap focusses on strengthening the European Monetary Union (EMU) and putting the needs of the EMU above country specific issues. My worry here is that the European Commission seems more concerned with making the electorate financially dependent on the EU, than it is with making the EU politically dependent on the electorate. This process is uncomfortable at best.

The cited EU Commission report casts doubt on PM Cameron's argument that the UK can only influence project goals by being a member of the project. His perspective compels me to ask: "If the EU invests its power in the EMU, and the UK is remains out of the EMU, which EU goals could the UK influence?"

I fear my questions will not be answered before votes are due, but perhaps one of you has an opinion on whether Leave or Remain does more to defend democratic accountability?

 

[BvBPL]

Perhaps another way to look at it is whether the EU creates accountability in local government. Britons have additional rights by dint if their nation being in the Union. Whether these rights are necessary to create an accountable local government or if they interfere with that goal is another way to examine the question.

 

[Lexicus]

Why would they leave the EU? What are some arguments for leaving?

 

[AlmostCivilized]

Perhaps another way to look at it is whether the EU creates accountability in local government. Britons have additional rights by dint if their nation being in the Union. Whether these rights are necessary to create an accountable local government or if they interfere with that goal is another way to examine the question.

I am not sure I follow, so if I missed the point please do try to rephrase.

On social rights: London (54%) attracts more inward investment than Paris (29%) or Berlin (24%) because it is internationally viewed as being the least discriminatory. When British workers move outside their border, they actually lose rights. For example, the typical experienced worker in the UK has the protection of UK age discrimination laws that are not enshrined in EU regulation. What additional rights do Britons gain by being in the EU?

On advocacy rights: When I contact my UK Member of Parliament, I receive a same day response with advice or invitation, and I expect that to be normal because looking after their constituents is what MPs are paid to do. They receive funding to operate local surgery with employed case workers. In contrast, when I reach out to my European MEP, I get no response and I'm not sure what they are paid to do.

Why would they leave the EU? What are some arguments for leaving?

The majority of Leave Campaign supporters appear to be concerned about immigrants (1) taking their jobs, or (2) threatening personal safety. The common fear is that the UK has no right and no legal capacity to prevent economic migrants entering from poorer EU states and claiming/exporting UK benefits (i.e. housing, social security payments, healthcare). Immigrants from outside the EU are graded (i.e. they must have a useful qualification) whereas immigrants from inside the EU are not graded. There is also fear of terrorists crossing the borders unchecked; but even Britons need to show their ID when re-entering the UK. There is fear of Turkey joining the EU and exacerbating these issues; but even Turkey does not think that will happen any time soon. I am not voting on those issues because (1) job security arguments have degraded on both sides, (2) predicting economic change is like predicting weather: long-term predictions are always flawed, (3) EU bodies maintain complex funding streams explicitly designed to strengthen the union: it would take years to discover what the UK owes or is owed, and (4) national security cooperation exists with or without the EU.

Another argument being circulated is the notion that the UK could negotiate better trade deals outside the EU; but new bilateral agreements take years negotiate and we know that because the UK does occasionally create them. The irony is that the UK had excellent trade agreements before it joined the EU, mostly via Commonwealth of Nations and European Free Trade Area (EFTA), and the UK abandoned both groups as part of joining the EU. UK inflation rose steeply when it did that, and I do not think the Leave campaign has discussed the UK re-joining those trade blocs. A more sensible topic to focus on might be the gradual loss of sovereignty, as demonstrated by closing the UK patent court and opening its replacement in Paris, but the Leave campaign doesn't seem very concerned with actual EU agreements. None of the campaigning politicians seem to understand the EU, and neither side of the debate has impressed me.

My vote is concerned with democratic accountability because that is a sensible issue to vote on.

 

[Agent327]

Hello World,

I am troubled on how to cast my vote despite simply wanting to vote for democratic accountability.

Not really the topic of the UK referendum, is it?

The EU bares little resemblance to European democratic governments. On one hand the EU Parliament is privileged to hear of EU projects, but it is largely powerless to intervene in them.

How so?

True power in the EU resides with the appointed European Commission, which does not answer to an electorate. Academics universally agree that the EU is not democratically accountable, and that the UK's ability to self-govern is being gradually eroded by the growing mass of EU regulations.

Really? How so? Perhaps you should check into the topic of goldplating.

Boris Johnson (former major of London) started on-topic with views of protecting the UK model from the EU model, but the Leave Campaign has since become distracted by issues of job security. I understand their motive, but I will not gamble my vote on dynamic systems that are regulated by chaos theory. If job creation mattered more to me than political morality then I would simply argue that the European Investment Bank capitalises most major UK infrastructure projects including London's Crossrail, and that would probably determine my vote. However, my vote is based on the concrete and moral issue of democratic accountability.

The UK leaving the EU will have zero effect on that.

"What are the EU Commission's actual plans for reforming EU democratic accountability?"

Since you started out with the UK being a bastion of democracy: since when do governments (not parliaments) initiate such things? Parliamentary rights and privileges are the result of parliamentary struggle for such rights, not of them being graciously conferred by governments.

 

[Tahuti]

True power in the EU resides with the appointed European Commission, which does not answer to an electorate.

The European Commission does answer to the national governments that comprise the EU. In many ways, this was a compromise to Eurosceptics, ironically.

In many ways, the Council of the EU and the European Commission joins the national governments into a one to govern the EU.

Independently of EU legislation, the UK has piss poor track record of serving it's citizens rights though. The UK is one of the most CCTV'ed states in the world.

 

[AlmostCivilized]

@Agent327. Voters are being asked: do you want the UK to continue surrendering autonomy to the EU, or do you want the UK to be independent? Democratic accountability is a key issue in that debate: It is one of the greatest criticisms of the EU from academic policy experts, and it is one that Johnson has been vocal about.

Tovergieter correctly highlights a thin, distant and indirect relationship between the EU Commission and democracy. UK voters elect their UK Parliament based on UK policy promises, and that UK Parliament is not held accountable for policies that come out of the EU Commission. There is only one way public voters can make their voice heard at the EU Commission, and that is a national referendum on the entire EU.

Agent327 asks me why the EU Parliament bares little resemblance to national governments. Typically, government institutions implement the policies that are given to them by an elected government. In contrast, EU policy making power rests directly with EC, ECB, EIB, CJEU. These EU bodies will meet with the EU Parliament on a regular basis to report their progress, much like a company provides financial statements, but the problem is that their policies are dictated to EU Parliament instead of the other way around; and their policy makers are career professionals not accountable to voters.

Agent327 suggests "Perhaps you should check into the topic of gold-plating". I think this was covered under my sentence for social rights in post #4, and it happens a lot because in reality the EU is playing catch-up to the UK on social rights. EU rights are the minimum permitted in an EU country, not the best allowed. The UK simply cannot downgrade to the minimum, so the UK does "gold-plate" EU regulations in an effort to retain the status-quo in its country. There are private companies that lobby against gold-plating, but the standards are higher in the UK because those companies have been tried in UK courts and found to be exploitative. The UK didn't wait for other European nations to catch-up before abolishing slavery, just as the UK cannot wait for the EU on other issues. "Gold-plating" is no guarantee of protection, as shown by the Common Agricultural Policy that forced certain types of UK farmers to pay dearly. The damage from most policies is often irreversible, so there is no value in dwelling on them.

Agent327 suggests leaving the EU would have no effect on the European Investment Bank's (EIB) capitalisation of UK infrastructure projects. I disagree because every project in every industry needs appropriate credit worthy financing. Clearly, $billion national infrastructure projects cannot be financed by a small business loan. Big high-risk projects need a big world-class creditor, and these normally comes in the form of AAA credited governments, the World Bank, or a similarly well capitalised institution. After the project has some financing from one of the world-class creditors, it goes about securing the rest of its funding from smaller risk-averse financiers such as Goldman Sachs. The European Investment Bank (EIB) is an EU body, and it is the biggest and most capitalised lender in the world. When the EIB awards 50% capital to any project, regardless of project risk and irrespective of project size, smaller creditors such as Goldman Sachs gain the confidence they need to award their own loans. The UK does not lend on the same scale as the EIB, and the UK is politically less able to support the same kinds of projects and maybe that is good. For example, EIB sets its own lending criteria and the EIB financed projects at VW aimed at lowering emissions. This highlights a problem because we might like to know if EIB financed the great VW emissions scandal, but EIB isn't democratically accountable and it doesn't need to disclose that much detail. Without EIB lending to major UK infrastructure projects such as Crossrail and HS2, it is unlikely that those projects would have been financed. JLR is another beneficiary of EIB financing. Leaving the EU has to mean leaving the EU bodies that were created in EU treaties to support EU member states.

Agent327 argues that "Parliamentary rights and privileges are the result of parliamentary struggle for such rights, not of them being graciously conferred by governments", and historic precedent shows those arguments were settled with war. The people of Europe (mainly allied soldiers) have already struggled for democracy. You are suggesting the UK needs struggle again to re-impose democratic accountability on Europe's decision making bodies, while at same time acknowledging that the EU Commission is appointed by national governments. I find it disgraceful that we are in this position, and I agree somewhat with what needs be done, and on this topic the UK government has promised to do whatever voters ask for. The voters are given one choice only: vote against the undemocratic EU bodies, or vote to retain the status-quo. Lets be frank, there isn't much else in the EU.

 

[Lexicus]

The majority of Leave Campaign supporters appear to be concerned about immigrants (1) taking their jobs, or (2) threatening personal safety.

As a United-Statesian living in the Age of Trump I'm quite familiar with this kind of fascist nonsense.

Another argument being circulated is the notion that the UK could negotiate better trade deals outside the EU; but new bilateral agreements take years negotiate and we know that because the UK does occasionally create them. The irony is that the UK had excellent trade agreements before it joined the EU, mostly via Commonwealth of Nations and European Free Trade Area (EFTA), and the UK abandoned both groups as part of joining the EU. UK inflation rose steeply when it did that, and I do not think the Leave campaign has discussed the UK re-joining those trade blocks. A more sensible topic to focus on might be the gradual loss of sovereignty, as demonstrated by closing the UK patent court and opening its replacement in Paris, but the Leave campaign doesn't seem very concerned with actual EU agreements. None of the campaigning politicians seem to understand the EU, and neither side of the debate has impressed me.

My vote is concerned with democratic accountability because that is a sensible issue to vote on.

I think this is pretty obviously false. The UK will do better at trading from inside the EU than outside it. The EU as a whole has more leverage than the UK possibly could have all by itself.

 

[AlmostCivilized]

As a United-Statesian living in the Age of Trump I'm quite familiar with this kind of fascist nonsense.

I understand what you are saying, but can you please try the following on for size: Suppose US voters are concerned about a NAFTA treaty that permits Canadians and Mexicans to enter the country without a visa, work without greencard, as well as claim pensions and medicare after 4 years*. In exchange, US citizens enjoy the freedom apply for jobs in Mexico and Canada etc. Should the US remain in NAFTA? For the UK referendum voters, that is not a hypothetical question. I suspect part of the UK problem is that most British have not learned to speak German or French, and this situation is no longer indicative of the educational divide: top-flight business schools are promoting Chinese instead of French or German.

I think this is pretty obviously false. The UK will do better at trading from inside the EU than outside it. The EU as a whole has more leverage than the UK possibly could have all by itself.

You are repeating the common retort, but would leaving the EU really mean going it alone? The UK created the Commonwealth of Nations trade bloc (i.e. Canada etc.), and the UK created EFTA trade bloc (i.e. Norway etc.), before ditching them in favour of the EU trade bloc (i.e. Germany etc.); so the UK has not experienced what it means to be by itself. There has been no discussion about what each trade blocs can offer an independent UK.

To reiterate, the topics in this post do not concern me. My focus is the issue of democratic accountability.

 

[Yeekim]

My focus is the issue of democratic accountability.

Democratic accountability for what? Very generally speaking, it is a tradeoff.
You either have 1 vote in ~60 million, but your government has less influence over certain matters, or you have 1 vote in ~500 million, but more influential government

 

[EnglishEdward]

AlmostCivilized; I agree with most of your Jun 20, 2016 at 06:32 AM. post, but differ regarding the following.

The voters are given one choice only: vote against the undemocratic EU bodies, or vote to retain the status-quo.

David Cameron presents voting 'Remain' as voting for the status-quo, the no change,
no risk, steady as she goes, comfy, cosy, safe, the default common sense option.

This is so that he does not have to justify it, and can assign all the risks on the Leavers.

However it is my opinion that any vote by the UK electorate to Remain will, bearing
in mind that the French and Netherlands voted not to join and were ignored, be
vicariously interpreted by the Euro-Federalists as the UK public freely giving them
a democratic mandate 'carte blanche' to proceed to complete the EU project.

There are a large number of issues (Euro, Greek Debt, slow growth, high youth
unemployment, relations with Russia, immigrant crisis) where matters are stuck;
the member state governments are prevented from dealing with them by the EU,
and the EU is prevented from dealing with them by member states governments.

The EU enthusiasts led by Germany seek to resolve such problems by increasing the
power of the central EU bodies. This would result in the further erosion of sovereignty
from member states to the point that member states such as Britain will become little
more than regional governments tasked with collecting taxes and enforcing EU law.

I am voting 'Leave' because I want self determination for myself and my children, to
remain British, live in England; not to be merely an EU citizen in EU Area Code NW2c.

 

[EnglishEdward]

AlmostCivilized, with reference to your Jun 20, 2016 at 10:14 AM.

My vote is concerned with democratic accountability because that is a sensible issue to vote on.

The key political EU Institutions today are very much the EEC institutions set up in the
1950s when there were just six members (three large and three small) renamed.

The problem is that configuration does not work when scaling up for 28 states;
and including other matters such as common currency and common defence.

They had the opportunity to radically rethink this when they proposed a constitution
which could easily have included democratic accountability, but they missed that.

The problem with the: we will sort out the coal and steel first, then agriculture,
then trade, then movement of people, then currency, next military etc, and then
add democratic accountability later; is that that happy later never arises.
The bankers and corporates simply don't want to be subject to democratic control.

 

[AlmostCivilized]

we will sort out the coal and steel first, then agriculture,
then trade, then movement of people, then currency, next military etc, and then
add democratic accountability later; is that that happy later never arises.
The bankers and corporates simply don't want to be subject to democratic control.

This is consistent with my understanding of the EU policy making bodies. My view is that the referendum is the only opportunity for voters to voice their discontent with the above. I would much prefer the referendum if it had been constructed in a way that it could deliver an ultimatum from the British public to the EU, rather than being an ultimatum set by UK government for the British people, but it is what it is.

As an aside, many first generation immigrants from within the Commonwealth are voting Leave because they joined the UK after passing through a vigorous points-based system, at considerable personal expense, and over many years. Many feel insulted by the 0 points offer that is being made to immigrants from within the EU.

 

[AlmostCivilized]

Democratic accountability for what? Very generally speaking, it is a tradeoff.
You either have 1 vote in ~60 million, but your government has less influence over certain matters, or you have 1 vote in ~500 million, but more influential government

Ratios are not the issue. Please read my statements about the structure of the European Commission and other EU bodies.

 

[Wastl]

However it is my opinion that any vote by the UK electorate to Remain will, bearing
in mind that the French and Netherlands voted not to join and were ignored, be
vicariously interpreted by the Euro-Federalists as the UK public freely giving them
a democratic mandate 'carte blanche' to proceed to complete the EU project.

Neither French nor Dutch were ever asked to vote on whether to join the EU.

What they actually did vote on, as in quite a few other EU-countries, was whether to agree to the Treaty of Rome, which was supposed to replace the various old deals that worked parallel to each other, and set up a sort of EU-constitution.
None of that had anything to do with the question of being an EU-member, which both countries had already been for quite a while at that point. In fact, while 61.5% of the Dutch who voted voted against the Treaty, citing mostly a lack of information, loss of national sovereignty or simply being against the government as a reason, 82% also said that they were in favour of being a member of the EU. Making it very clear that this was not a move against the EU itself. In France, 90% of the voters said that they support EU-membership.

In other words: if the people had been asked to vote on the matter of EU-membership, it would have been a landslide victory in favour of it in both countries.

Beyond that, those results didn't get ignored. The Treaty of Rome was never put into effect. They set up a different treaty a few years later - a treaty that didn't go nearly as far as the old one - and made sure that people didn't have to vote about that one, but that is a different matter.


I very much doubt that anyone would consider a remain vote as agreement to further integration in the EU. Apart from the odd person here and there (mostly from Germany) who got all ideas of a national identity and pride in their own country beaten out of them, you will not really find anyone who would support such ideas in the current situation.

 

[classical_hero]

Not really the topic of the UK referendum, is it?

Yes it is, since if the people don't have the say in their own affairs, then you are not living under a democracy and might as well be living under a dictator.

 

[EnglishEdward]

Neither French nor Dutch were ever asked to vote on whether to join the EU.

What they actually did vote on, as in quite a few other EU-countries, was whether to agree to the Treaty of Rome, which was supposed to replace the various old deals that worked parallel to each other, and set up a sort of EU-constitution.
None of that had anything to do with the question of being an EU-member, which both countries had already been for quite a while at that point. In fact, while 61.5% of the Dutch who voted voted against the Treaty, citing mostly a lack of information, loss of national sovereignty or simply being against the government as a reason, 82% also said that they were in favour of being a member of the EU. Making it very clear that this was not a move against the EU itself. In France, 90% of the voters said that they support EU-membership.

In other words: if the people had been asked to vote on the matter of EU-membership, it would have been a landslide victory in favour of it in both countries.

Beyond that, those results didn't get ignored. The Treaty of Rome was never put into effect. They set up a different treaty a few years later - a treaty that didn't go nearly as far as the old one - and made sure that people didn't have to vote about that one, but that is a different matter.


I very much doubt that anyone would consider a remain vote as agreement to further integration in the EU. Apart from the odd person here and there (mostly from Germany) who got all ideas of a national identity and pride in their own country beaten out of them, you will not really find anyone who would support such ideas in the current situation.

Oh yes, my wording above was poor; their vote was on the Constitution not joining.

 

[Verbose]

Yes it is, since if the people don't have the say in their own affairs, then you are not living under a democracy and might as well be living under a dictator.

Autarky it should be then.

Why not leave NATO?

Not that a Brexit might not affect Britain's standing in NATO as well.

 

[AlmostCivilized]

Yes it is, since if the people don't have the say in their own affairs, then you are not living under a democracy and might as well be living under a dictator.

Thanks classical_hero.

I think my perspective has now been explained. The problem, however, is not knowing whether my view rests with the Remain camp or Leave camp?

Remain camp
Is remaining, as Cameron asserts, to remain fighting for democratic values in the EU? Or is remaining, as Johnson argues, to continue eroding democratic accountability in the UK?

Leave camp
Is leaving, as Cameron argues, to retreat from political debate and hand victory to an undemocratic regime in the EU? Or is leaving, as Johnson asserts, the same as defending democracy in the UK?

Sadly for me to abstain, on the basis that paid politicians have been campaigning with smoke and mirrors, will count for nothing.

 

[christos200]

I would say that Remain is the best option. A Leave victory will strengthen Euroscepticism and will discourage further efforts to make the EU more united and governments from giving more powers to it (thus eventually leading to a more federal like model which will provide democratic accountability). A Remain victory will not change much short term but it will be a step towards defeating far right and left wing populism seeking to tear apart the EU and (hopefully) will persuade people to hope again that the European project can be successful, thus allowing governments to agree to give more powers to the EU.