EU and Democracy - Why the EU is classed as undemocratic

[scaryjim]

Is that hexus.net policy, or is that what you think the internet is? ...

It's not hexus forums policy (please note, hexus owns the forums, but the forums and hexus are somewhat distinct), but it's something that most moderators would bring up if a thread started to get derailed and people complained about the direction of thread - remembering that all moderators and admins act on their own judgement, although informed by the direction and general ethos that the forum owner expects us to maintain.

In this case there's two arguments to be made. The first is that a thread title is likely to direct the content of the thread, as people will often enter a thread and respond to or debate the thread title - and inasmuch as that happens the title of a thread will often inform the content of it. The second is that common decency suggests that you should at least read the opening post of a thread before commenting on it, as the title is necessarily short and a thread starter is likely to have expanded on their point.

So, if the OP is actually a more complex consideration than can be expressed in the title of the thread, but people come in and simply try to debate the thread title while ignoring the OP, that's slipping below the standards of common decency, which is the minimum we'd expect at hexus.

In this case, it was pointed out very early in this thread that there are several other threads already open that discussed the topic more generally, and the OP clearly asked a question directly related to the article linked. So whilst I understand the temptation for people to bring the general debate about EU democracy into this thread, I don't think this was the correct place for that discussion to be picked up, and I can understand the OP's frustration at this thread essentially turning into just another debate about the rights and wrongs of EU membership (if slightly more focussed than the others).

All that said, I don't think anyone's covered themselves in glory in this thread. Unsurprising, given the emotive nature of both the subject matter and the wall-to-wall media coverage of it, but unfortunate, nonetheless.

[opel80uk]

... and I can understand the OP's frustration at this thread essentially turning into just another debate about the rights and wrongs of EU membership (if slightly more focussed than the others).

To be honest, I'm not sure I understand how anyone can be surprised that a thread started about one of the core issues behind the Brexit campaign, on the eve of the referendum, wouldn't become just another debate about the rights and wrongs of EU membership.

And for what it is worth, I read the article in it's entirety, and came away with the opinion that the Author appears to have both a strange sense of what democracy means 'in reality' to the people, and also that he has a very myopic opinion of what the EU actually does and how it works. The article says:

'Let us return to the minimalist definition of a democracy I set out at the beginning: if 100 percent of us believe a law should not be passed, it is not. This criterion is not met for Britons in either the European Parliament or the EU Commission.'

But the Professor in the video says IIRC that unless the UK Parliament votes to pass a particular law, it won't be passed regardless of what is decided in either the European Parliament or the EU Commission. If the Professor is right about that, then I'm not sure what the big deal is. Makes me wonder if this Anti-Democratic label is nothing more than a red herring.

[big_hairy_rob]

EU is not a democracy hence is undemocratic. This doesn't however mean that it's not fair or that it doesn't work; or that democracy is a better system...

[Corky34]

EU is not a democracy hence is undemocratic.

That myths been debunked so many times, it's surprising people still make that claim.

[scaryjim]

... Makes me wonder if this Anti-Democratic label is nothing more than a red herring.

There's a few issues here (and yes, I've now read that article), and they're probably too complex for a simple summation, sadly.

Suffice to say that - as with most things - if you change your postulates you can happily demonstrate that the EU is both democratic and undemocratic. Essentially (as far as I can tell), you have to start from the viewpoint that all legislative burdens on British people should derive only from those representatives they elect directly. Anything that places a burden on the UK that does originate from its elected Parliament is therefore undemocratic. As the EU passes down a variety of instruments that are binding (some directly, some by requiring member nations to introduce it's own legislation at a national level), it is arguable that the EU is undemocratic, as those instruments become law in Britain regardless of the will of the British people.

Intellectually, I can see the argument. In practical terms - certainly in the way it's been used in the Leave campaign - it's nonsense. The man in the street has no more influence over Westminster than over Brussels. 75% of the people in this country are already disenfranchised in Westminster. It's possibly the most elitest reason for leaving the EU.

But the whole debate is kind of moot - and this is where the article falls down - because that's treating the EU legislature like it's an extended national government. And it's not. It's a membership organisation. It applies rules and regulations to its members, and the decision process for setting those rules and regulations involves two chambers of elected officials. If you're a member of the organisation you get a say, and if you're part of the electorate of a member you actually get two says, because you vote in your national elections to determine your head of state, and you vote separately in European elections to send directly elected representatives. Yep, every British citizen gets two chances to have a say in who sets the rules and regulations of an organisation that we are a member of. Sounds pretty democratic to me.

[big_hairy_rob]

That myths been debunked so many times, it's surprising people still make that claim.

Not really, and certainly not by my understanding of democracy. Basically if the people making the rules do it badly, then we have no way of voting them all out, just the small proportion that we elected. How is that a democracy?

[scaryjim]

... if the people making the rules do it badly, then we have no way of voting them all out, just the small proportion that we elected. How is that a democracy?

Because Britian != The EU. If everyone in Europe votes them out, they get voted out. Simple as. Your argument is the self same reason that Westminster is undemocratic, and it's because you're treating the EU like a national government, which it isn't. Read my earlier post for full details.

Plus if we decide - separately from the rest of the EU - that we don't like the rules or that they're bad for Britain, we can remove ourselves from the EU through appropriate democratic process. Which is why we're even having this discussion.

[big_hairy_rob]

Because Britian != The EU. If everyone in Europe votes them out, they get voted out. Simple as. Your argument is the self same reason that Westminster is undemocratic, and it's because you're treating the EU like a national government, which it isn't. Read my earlier post for full details.

Plus if we decide - separately from the rest of the EU - that we don't like the rules or that they're bad for Britain, we can remove ourselves from the EU through appropriate democratic process. Which is why we're even having this discussion.

Fair point scaryjim, though that does bring up something earlier linked (paraphrased - no time to search, sorry) "How can you have a democratic decision when the sheer amount of misinformation released from both sides prevents an informed decision from being reached?" So is this vote really democratic?

[scaryjim]

F... "How can you have a democratic decision when the sheer amount of misinformation released from both sides prevents an informed decision from being reached?" So is this vote really democratic?

If the decision is of the people, it's democratic. It may also also uninformed, but that doesn't stop it being democratic. It's one of the key problems with democracy, and particularly referendums - you allow people with no knowledge or understanding of a subject to make decisions about it.

The vote, however, is democratic.

[wazzickle]

The main argument against referenda is exactly that - you're putting a (presumably) important decision in the hands of those who don't bother educating themselves, vote based on feelings (including prejudice, hatred, irrational fear, etc) and are particularly susceptible to propaganda. We pay politicians to make decisions for us. For all their faults, this sort of decision is too important to be decided directly democratically.

[big_hairy_rob]

If the decision is of the people, it's democratic. It may also also uninformed, but that doesn't stop it being democratic. It's one of the key problems with democracy, and particularly referendums - you allow people with no knowledge or understanding of a subject to make decisions about it.

The vote, however, is democratic.

I however do not see it as uninformed, but rather misinformed and that changes the ability of people to make a free decision. The issue isn't that people aren't given the facts, or don't attempt to understand both positions, but that they are given a huge amount of speculation passed off as facts which inevitably prevents some people from reaching a decision. I will however agree that their 'right to vote' is not affected, though their 'right' to vote against the status quo certainly is.

[Andy3536]

The main argument against referenda is exactly that - you're putting a (presumably) important decision in the hands of those who don't bother educating themselves, vote based on feelings (including prejudice, hatred, irrational fear, etc) and are particularly susceptible to propaganda. We pay politicians to make decisions for us. For all their faults, this sort of decision is too important to be decided directly democratically.

I think that's very disingenuous. I imagine lots of people have looked up information on the EU, and that lots of people voting, will be clear on what they're voting for or why.
It's very wrong to suggest that anyone not voting the same way as you is clearly wrong and it must be because they haven't educated themselves enough.
Surely people are aloud to have concerns ever closer political union, concerns that the union has ignored national referendums on countless occasions in the past, concerns over the fact that we can't control the numbers of migrants coming here, concerns that the union shows no sign of any sort of reform.

[Lucio]

The original hypothesis, that the EU is not a democractic form of government, isn't a particularly new concept. However, that fact, in of itself, isn't a reason to oppose it as a form of government.

It's a concern only when Europe wishes to adopt a federal level of government over nation states, something which would be difficult to impossible to enact given the widely varied types and styles of government across Europe.

[wazzickle]

The EU is not a government.

I think that's very disingenuous. I imagine lots of people have looked up information on the EU, and that lots of people voting, will be clear on what they're voting for or why.
It's very wrong to suggest that anyone not voting the same way as you is clearly wrong and it must be because they haven't educated themselves enough.
Surely people are aloud to have concerns ever closer political union, concerns that the union has ignored national referendums on countless occasions in the past, concerns over the fact that we can't control the numbers of migrants coming here, concerns that the union shows no sign of any sort of reform.

You'd be a great terrible politician. I'm not talking about the people who have looked up information, I'm talking about the people that haven't. In no way have I suggested that anyone not voting the same way as me is wrong. Of course people can have concerns, but the problem is when those concerns (on either side) are manipulated by dodgy data and dodgy arguments.