EU and Democracy - Why the EU is classed as undemocratic

[TooNice]

How quiet is Hexus General Discussion going to become once this is over

[Phage]

Back to cars ?

[Galant]

I have no idea. It is a classic to post a link to approx 1tb of text than ask people to argue with it whilst ignoring the 1tb links they posted.

Because there are established flows to those threads already. I thought the essay had some good points and was worthy of a look, so I posted a separate thread.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Don't worry - we can start the uk is doomed thread after the referendum. I am sure in or out it probably holds either way the results go.

[Phage]

Here's another, shorter article.

http://arstechnica.co.uk/tech-policy...h-influencers/

[Phage]

Don't worry - we can start the uk is doomed thread after the referendum. I am sure in or out it probably holds either way the results go.

What worries me is the pointless divisions that this is creating.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

What worries me is the pointless divisions that this is creating.

Ofc - the singular major problem is our nearly two trillion pounds of debts - all our politicians know this. They only need to get us plebs fighting and distracted from the real issue.

Damn,that sounds a bit 1984 like.

[kompukare]

I've not heard a single person, not one, nor read any single author, who has said that their perfectly fine with the UK's system. This isn't a zero sum game. It's not about choosing either the EU or the UK system as it is. It's about choosing to continue to have the power and ability to do something something about the one, and defending at least the principles and basic elements of it.

Well, actually that would the one interesting thing to see if out wins: freed of the bogeyman of the EU who will the newspapers, politicians and the public blame now?

If, as I believe, out will not fix anything but only create new problems, and given that the unrepresentative FPTP system favours both the big parties (not equally but it still favours them both) the likelihood is that there will be no reforms. Voting out isn't likely to suddenly spur the UK's to get a major overhaul after doing no reforms for centuries.
Remember a lot of representative voting system - including the one used in the Irish Republic (STV) which would arguably suit the UK well as it maintains the link between constituents and their representatives - were actually invented by British people, just they could never get anyone here to take interest in them. Certainly not the main parties who both benefit from the status quo.

[Corky34]

Not with that level of comprehension, no.

He clearly states that he's using 100% requirement as a simplistic and minimalistic example of democracy. A standard everyone can agree on. An extreme.

Nice ad hominem.

He's not using a simplistic and minimalistic example of democracy, he's being disingenuous in the hope that affectable people will be taken in.

[me-yeah]

The article has nothing to do with the immigration question.

yup, but im proper bored hearing about immigration and the referendum, its the main selling point for the leave compaign

[directhex]

I have no idea. It is a classic to post a link to approx 1tb of text than ask people to argue with it whilst ignoring the 1tb links they posted.

It's called the "Gish Gallop"

[Phage]

It's called the "Gish Gallop"

Brilliant - Thanks I've learned something today. I recognise the tactic, but never realised it had a name.

[Galant]

You guys do realise no one forced you to come in and read the thread right? You're quite free to not click any links you find or, if you do click, not to comment.

I raised a separate thread apart from the other threads so as not to redirect the flows of those threads or clog them. I did so on a specific subject with a particular article in mind so that those who might want to engage in the subject or read the article could do so. It was one post. You were and are quite free to ignore it or to provide a rebuttal.

I don't at all understand the need to just come into the thread, without reading the article in question and moan or drag the thread off topic.

[Galant]

Nice ad hominem.

He's not using a simplistic and minimalistic example of democracy, he's being disingenuous in the hope that affectable people will be taken in.

Apologies for the slight. I'm honestly just frustrated as per my last post above this one.

I do feel though, you've missed the author's point. He's not setting 100% as the defacto standard for democracy. He's making an argument in abstraction by setting a definable standard everyone can agree on - that if a 100% vote was obtained, then the voice of the people and nation would be totally clear, with no doubt and we would expect a governmental response inline with that voice. In short, the bare minimum for a democracy is that if a 100% vote was obtained the government should listen.

He then points out that in the EU, even if a 100% vote was obtained in any of the nations, that vote would not necessarily carry forward but could be ignored or overridden.

[spacein_vader]

Apologies for the slight. I'm honestly just frustrated as per my last post above this one.

I do feel though, you've missed the author's point. He's not setting 100% as the defacto standard for democracy. He's making an argument in abstraction by setting a definable standard everyone can agree on - that if a 100% vote was obtained, then the voice of the people and nation would be totally clear, with no doubt and we would expect a governmental response inline with that voice. In short, the bare minimum for a democracy is that if a 100% vote was obtained the government should listen.

He then points out that in the EU, even if a 100% vote was obtained in any of the nations, that vote would not necessarily carry forward but could be ignored or overridden.

But he's not comparing apples with apples. His UK example is that if 100% of the electorate (all UK citizens with the right to vote,) don't want something it won't happen. He then compares that to the EU saying that if all UK citizens vote against something it can happen. A fair comparison would be if the entire electorate (eg. every EU citizen entitled to vote,) was against something.

We wouldn't call the UK undemocratic if the whole of (for example,) Oxfordshire voted against something and it was still passed.

[Galant]

He addresses this as he continues. He's building a progressive case as he continues.

He does this way because he's highlighting the reality that as an individual nation democracy is removed in the EU. It removes the ability of an individual nation to govern itself sovereignly, democratically, within itself.

This indicates a transfer of power to the EU because one ends up talking about the EU and EU citizens as a single entity, an identity to itself.

He then looks to see if that is exactly true. If it's a move across to have the same democratic power as Europe or Europeans as with the individual nation, and he finds that it is not, it is different. So democracy is lost at the level of the individual nation and is not regained at the EU 'state' level.