EU Referendum: Protecting The Democracy

[AlmostCivilized]

Why not leave NATO?

NATO is irrelevant to the topic because NATO is not a political union, and NATO does not attempt to rule the citizens of member states.

 

[uppi]

For the EU to be truly democratic, there needs to be an European demos first - a European people. As long as people think in nationalities, a truly democratic European government will end in disaster. The current situation is as it is, because the national governments are unwilling to give up any decisions to a pan-European parliament.

So in my opinion, the English are more of a hindrance to democracy in the EU, because they oppose most strongly the idea of an ever closer union. Without the blockades set up the the UK the EU might speed up its glacial pace of integration and democratization. Or it might be broken apart by the reignition of nationalism that has spread over Europe in the last decade.

 

[FriendlyFire]

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

Eestia can into EU relevance !

Though Estonia has benefited a lot from the joining the EU, it did receive large EU investments which it made good use of, Unlike some other EU countries that I cannot mention.

The EU gives a small country like Estonia a voice

Estonia wanted to join Nato – passionately and wholeheartedly. The trauma of having been crushed between two totalitarian states in 1939-1940, with no one coming to your aid, had made membership of Nato an all-important policy goal, designed to ensure that this could never happen again.

Europe can have bilateral talks with today’s big powers about trade, investment, cultural exchanges and so forth, it is only by sticking together as Europe that we really have a say on issues that shape the world: questions of the rules of the game and world order.

Estonia is now the EU’s leader on digital and cyber issues – because it has built up the relevant expertise and learned how to offer it. Its efficient handling of the economic crisis has earned it credibility on economic issues. Russia’s annexation of Crimea has also given the Baltic states an authoritative voice on Russia – where earlier they were considered a biased party.

In Estonia, the EU’s popularity has never again been as low as 67%. It now usually hovers above 80%.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/15/eu-gives-small-country-estonia-voice

 

[Verbose]

NATO is irrelevant to the topic because NATO is not a political union, and NATO does not attempt to rule the citizens of member states.

Considering the EU set up is based on soverign decisions by soverign governments, somehow you end up questioning British soverignty for having done so. The UK IS soverign and can decide things like entering the EU, right, even if you think it shouldn't have? And for all the world to see, the UK can also withdraw from the EU. No one is contesting this, if it turns out people in the UK want this.

There's something to be said for the situation that some rights that cannot be exercised are nor in fact real. But so far, apart from disension within the ranks of the British, what indicates the UK is not fully soverign to both join and if it so likes withdraw from the EU? At which point has it been demonstrated suffciently to the British, that yes, you can?

Which might allow actually discussing why they might want to? Sovereignity is a total red herring. It's not what the referendum is about. What it's even LESS about, by now, is the actal EU and how it works.

So why isn't NATO a problem? The UK ha also surrendered soverignity (like in the 400 or so other international agreements most modern nations have entered into, and which reduce its freedom of action).

Why not leave the EBU? Why should the UK compete in the Eurovision Song Contest after all?

 

[Verbose]

So in my opinion, the English are more of a hindrance to democracy in the EU, because they oppose most strongly the idea of an ever closer union. Without the blockades set up the the UK the EU might speed up its glacial pace of integration and democratization. Or it might be broken apart by the reignition of nationalism that has spread over Europe in the last decade.

Possibly, but regarding the develpment of the economy of the EU, Britain is a huge asset for the union...

 

[crabapple]

The biggest problem with the EU is euro, it should never have happened. It has messed up nearly all of the eurozones economies. Giving this I do not know if i want a Brexit or not, if this helps the removal of the eurozone or makes is harder to do.

 

[Agent327]

Yes, that wouldn't have anything to do with the Great Recession, obviously.

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.

Ah yes, I can see it in the wording now... No, it's still not the topic - even if classical_hero claims so. I can also see you agreeing with Mr Johnson in comparing the EU to Hitler, but again, that's not the topic of the referendum. But feel free to claim otherwise regardless of any facts.

@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.

Thst's all very fine, but despite this repetitive Euroskeptic narrative the fact of the matter is that the EU has become more democratic over the decades rather than less. Perhaps you've forgotten that the original EC wasn't democratic at all: it was simply an agreement between governments. There was not European parliament, and when there came to be one it didn't have budget rights.

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.

Not at all. And the comparison is flawed to begin with, as UK voters also don't elect their own government. However, the government is accountable to parliament, just as the EC is to the European parliament. Britain out will have zero effect on that, if only simply because it no longer has any EP members,

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.

Once again, no institutions or governments are elected: their members are named or proposed, not elected.

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.

You really should have checked 'goldplating', as it has nothing to do with what you just said. Simply put, it means UK officials present regulations they make as 'being obligatory because the EU'.

Agent327 suggests leaving the EU would have no effect on the European Investment Bank's (EIB) capitalisation of UK infrastructure projects.

I didn't even mention such a thing.

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.

You seem to be confusing a few things. War has nothing to do with parliamentary rights, which must be confirmed by law.

You seem to have long made up your mind, but that doesn't give you the right to make up arguments based on 'suggestions'. Kindly stay to facts - even though this is politics.

 

[crabapple]

Yes, that wouldn't have anything to do with the Great Recession, obviously.
.

It made the so called great recession worse, because the individual countries cant have their own monetary policy suited for their own economy. The Euro was before the crisis a gigantic trap just waiting to be sprung by a recession.

 

[Yeekim]

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

Well, if you say:

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

,you are half-correct at best.
The Commission indeed has a powerful tool in being able to initiate legislation, but they have no influence over what actually happens to their proposal once they hand it over to Council and Parliament.

 

[AlmostCivilized]

For the EU to be truly democratic, there needs to be an European demos first - a European people. As long as people think in nationalities, a truly democratic European government will end in disaster. The current situation is as it is, because the national governments are unwilling to give up any decisions to a pan-European parliament.

So in my opinion, the English are more of a hindrance to democracy in the EU, because they oppose most strongly the idea of an ever closer union. Without the blockades set up the the UK the EU might speed up its glacial pace of integration and democratization. Or it might be broken apart by the reignition of nationalism that has spread over Europe in the last decade.

I am glad I read your post. My personal take on democracy is that we respect each other's views, and we compromise in order to progress together. The EU does not ask for our views.

The EU provides us with a means to scrutinise the EU policy, but we cannot influence the direction of EU policy. EU bodies are protected by treaty, and EU bodies write their own policies. Those EU policies are dictated to the EU parliament and that is not democratic. The British are being asked whether or not they are willing to continue with the status quo, and I think its wrong to coerce the British public to endorse a system that is very undemocratic.

Incidentally, by Wikipedia's definition I am Pro-European, but I am also so very concerned about the current structure of the EU, and I might vote Leave.

Pro-Europeans (i.e. those in favour of the EU) argue that the European Union should reform its institutions to make them more accountable, while Eurosceptics argue that the EU should reduce its powers and often campaign for withdrawal from the EU.

 

[AlmostCivilized]

Well, if you say: ,you are half-correct at best.
The Commission indeed has a powerful tool in being able to initiate legislation, but they have no influence over what actually happens to their proposal once they hand it over to Council and Parliament.

Thank you for mentioning the European Council.

The council brings together the civil servants of national governments. These career specialists are not known to the public and they do not want to annoy their counterparties from other governments because they may be negotiating their help on other issues that will impact their career progression, such as discussing a new bilateral agreement. One concerning fact is that the UK has never voted against legislation in the council. Another concerning fact is that UK civil servants have voted in favour without seeking permission from the UK Cabinet, and we only know this because when they are caught they are disgraced by the UK government.

What I would like to see is policy making, or the setting of targets and objectives, with democratic accountability. Legislation is law making and quite different. One policy might be to reduce the amount of shoplifting by increasing the education on the subject, whereas Legislation might be 10 year prison sentence for persons caught with a stolen Mars bar. Policy and Legislation are not the same, and I think its important to ask: When does EU Parliament initiate policy?

 

[AlmostCivilized]

I can also see you agreeing with Mr Johnson in comparing the EU to Hitler

For the record, I do not think the EU was founded on the principles of the Third Reich. Johnson and I are very different people: we can agree on one point and disagree on another.

Thst's all very fine, but despite this repetitive Euroskeptic narrative the fact of the matter is that the EU has become more democratic over the decades rather than less.

The fact is we are being asked to endorse the current system as it stands today. There has been no discussion of what it will become. Cabinet has suggested there are more changes to come this year, and even that something has been agreed between UK and EU, but voters are not being told what exactly those changes will be.

Perhaps you've forgotten that the original EC wasn't democratic at all

The vast majority of British voters support the EC, but their views on the EU are less certain.

Not at all. And the comparison is flawed to begin with, as UK voters also don't elect their own government.

This is off-topic. British voters select their representative based on policy pledges, and voters scrutinise their chosen representatives as and when they initiate or debate policy. Example: The Lib Dems made policy pledges and many of them were elected, and after backtracking the Lib Dems learned the meaning of accountability: they were not re-elected.

That is democratic accountability.

Simply put, it means UK officials present regulations they make as 'being obligatory because the EU'

I didn't even mention such a thing.

Please use full bodied descriptions because I genuinely try to understand your point, and I often find it hard to understand what you are trying to say.

Kindly stay to facts - even though this is politics.

 

[AlmostCivilized]

The biggest problem with the EU is euro, it should never have happened. It has messed up nearly all of the eurozones economies. Giving this I do not know if i want a Brexit or not, if this helps the removal of the eurozone or makes is harder to do.

Top priority for the European Commission is Economic Monetary Union (EMU), which is dependent on a Eurozone. European Central Bank (ECB) writes some Eurozone economic policies.

At the moment the EMU policy makers need to accept that there is also a Bank Of England (BOE). If UK leaves then there will be less compromising on EMU policy.

 

[AlmostCivilized]

Considering the EU set up is based on soverign decisions by soverign governments, somehow you end up questioning British soverignty for having done so. The UK IS soverign and can decide things like entering the EU, right, even if you think it shouldn't have? And for all the world to see, the UK can also withdraw from the EU. No one is contesting this, if it turns out people in the UK want this.

There's something to be said for the situation that some rights that cannot be exercised are nor in fact real. But so far, apart from disension within the ranks of the British, what indicates the UK is not fully soverign to both join and if it so likes withdraw from the EU? At which point has it been demonstrated suffciently to the British, that yes, you can?

Which might allow actually discussing why they might want to? Sovereignity is a total red herring. It's not what the referendum is about. What it's even LESS about, by now, is the actal EU and how it works.

So why isn't NATO a problem? The UK ha also surrendered soverignity (like in the 400 or so other international agreements most modern nations have entered into, and which reduce its freedom of action).

Why not leave the EBU? Why should the UK compete in the Eurovision Song Contest after all?

The issue is not sovereignty, and it can be acceptable for the exercising of power to be delegated to an international organisations such as NATO, WTO or WHO.

Subset of the democratic accountability issues:

• Autonomous EU bodies (EIB, ECB, etc.) do not take instruction from EU parliament
• EU parliament cannot initiate legislature
• EU parliament can only seek amendment to proposed legislature
• Voter visibility of parliamentary/commission/council debates is poor to non-existent
• Voter turnout in European elections has declined in every election without exception
• European Council could be coercing national governments to vote for its legislation and voters cannot know

P.S. There is no central electronic database for treaties agreed in the 19th Century and some valid treaties are not being exercised because we don't realise they exist.

 

[Yeekim]

Thank you for mentioning the European Council.

The council brings together the civil servants of national governments. These career specialists are not known to the public and they do not want to annoy their counterparties from other governments because they may be negotiating their help on other issues that will impact their career progression, such as discussing a new bilateral agreement. One concerning fact is that the UK has never voted against legislation in the council. Another concerning fact is that UK civil servants have voted in favour without seeking permission from the UK Cabinet, and we only know this because when they are caught they are disgraced by the UK government.

What I would like to see is policy making, or the setting of targets and objectives, with democratic accountability. Legislation is law making and quite different. One policy might be to reduce the amount of shoplifting by increasing the education on the subject, whereas Legislation might be 10 year prison sentence for persons caught with a stolen Mars bar. Policy and Legislation are not the same, and I think its important to ask: When does EU Parliament initiate policy?

This merits longer answer later, but the underlined part above is simply wrong.
In fact, UK is the country most likely to vote "No" in the Council.
http://www.votewatch.eu/blog/brexit-or-not-britains-already-isolated-in-brussels/

 

[Flying Pig]

The issue is not sovereignty, and it can be acceptable for the exercising of power to be delegated to an international organisations such as NATO, WTO or WHO.

Subset of the democratic accountability issues:

• Autonomous EU bodies (EIB, ECB, etc.) do not take instruction from EU parliament
• EU parliament cannot initiate legislature
• EU parliament can only seek amendment to proposed legislature
• Voter visibility of parliamentary/commission/council debates is poor to non-existent
• Voter turnout in European elections has declined in every election without exception
  [*] European Council could be coercing national governments to vote for its legislation and voters cannot know

P.S. There is no central electronic database for treaties agreed in the 19th Century and some valid treaties are not being exercised because we don't realise they exist.

This is also an argument for doing away with NATO, UNICEF and McDonalds. After all, any of those could be coercing the British government to legislate in their own interests, and we cannot know. Most of us have enough faith in journalism that we wait for evidence before rushing to the conspiracy theories.

 

[BvBPL]

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.

I'm thinking of things like the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, access to the Court of Justice, and human rights ensured by various EU treaties and laws. British citizen have rights ensured by the EU that can be asserted against their local government, but if the UK opts to leave the EU then the citizens will lose that assurance.

 

[AlmostCivilized]

This merits longer answer later, but the underlined part above is simply wrong.
In fact, UK is the country most likely to vote "No" in the Council.
http://www.votewatch.eu/blog/brexit-or-not-britains-already-isolated-in-brussels/

You did not read your own link. This is the relevant snippet:

Where the Council is concerned, another way to think about the figures is that the U.K. government has voted to support EU legislation 97 percent of the time since 2004

To the best of my knowledge, 97% consists entirely of YES and ABSTAIN. To the best of my knowledge, not once has the UK voted NO in the European Council. ABSTAIN must not be interpreted as a negative because and it can result from UK decision makers in London and Brussels being unable to reach a consensus quickly enough (there is a deadline on votes, and negotiations run non-stop for days).

 

[AlmostCivilized]

This is also an argument for doing away with NATO, UNICEF and McDonalds. After all, any of those could be coercing the British government to legislate in their own interests, and we cannot know. Most of us have enough faith in journalism that we wait for evidence before rushing to the conspiracy theories.

I presume you are referring to lobbyists or pressure groups, a topic that is unrelated to the concept of forcing decision makers to disclose their votes to one another. You are right in that McDonalds will try to persuade decision makers, as will independent research councils, but these pressures can only be coercive if the target decision maker has been compromised. Lobbying is in no way comparable to the European Council, and lobbying is off-topic.

Nations vote in the council following rounds of negotiation. If the UK voted NO on a topic that is important to 20 other states at the council, then the UK would upset those other states, and that would put the UK in an impossible position because it would be unlikely that the UK could ever win their support on other issues. In reality, those other 20 states have probably offered the UK an incentive to vote YES. Given these constraints, the UK will probably vote YES to anything, and that level of coercion is unacceptable. It is certainly not an example of democratic accountability.

 

[Yeekim]

You did not read your own link.

Just a short way above of what you quoted.

In terms of raw numbers, since 2004, Britain has been outvoted in the Council 105 times (48 No votes and 57 Abstentions) and 82 of these have been since 2009 (36 No votes and 45 Abstentions).

ABSTAIN must not be interpreted as a negative because and it can result from UK decision makers in London and Brussels being unable to reach a consensus quickly enough (there is a deadline on votes, and negotiations run non-stop for days).

That is how it works in practice, however.
And what do you mean "for days"? You mean "for years"?