7 ms·

Except the EU isn't undemocratic and immigration is good the economy.

by Xiol 10y ago

ZenoArrow 10y ago
> "Except the EU isn't undemocratic" What gives you that impression?
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- jerven 10y ago
  If you call the UK a democracy then yes the EU is very democratic. Also assuming whitehall will produce less redtape than brussels is probably not going to be true :(
  - ZenoArrow 10y ago
    > "If you call the UK a democracy then yes the EU is very democratic." Explain.
    - ionised 10y ago
      It's a plutocracy. Has been for hundreds of years. The UK has an unlected upper House of Lords. It has a monarch that technically still has a lot of power, even if it isn't excercised. London is the primary focus of the country's expenditure and may as well be a city state. The City of London, an entity unto itself is rife with fraud and corruption on a global scale, and essentially owns our politicians, much like Goldman Sachs basically owns the US government.
      - jerven 10y ago
        Plus the way that districts for the house of commons operate... leading to a less than representative commons.
      - ZenoArrow 10y ago
        > "It's a plutocracy. Has been for hundreds of years. > "The UK has an unlected upper House of Lords." The balance of power has shifted in those 'hundreds of years'. The House of Lords no longer has the same level of power it did 200 years ago. The Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949 shifted the bulk of the power for law making to the House of Commons. If you're not familiar with these bills, I recommend taking a look... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_Act_1911 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_Act_1911 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_Act_1949 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_Act_1949 > "It has a monarch that technically still has a lot of power, even if it isn't excercised." The moment the Monarch tries to exercise that power is the moment the Monarch seals their fate, as dissolution of the monarchy would almost inevitably follow soon after. I'd hardly call that 'power'. > "London is the primary focus of the country's expenditure and may as well be a city state." I agree that spending in London is disproportionately high compared to the rest of the country. However, it's worth remembering how big a part of the UK that London is. The population of Greater London is roughly 9.8 million. The population of the UK as a whole is roughly 64.1 million. Therefore, approximately 15% of everyone in the UK lives in London/Greater London. To put that in perspective, that's more people than live in the next 6 largest urban areas combined (Greater Manchester, West Midlands, West Yorkshire, Greater Glasgow, Liverpool, South Hampshire). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_urban_areas_in_the_United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_urban_areas_in_the_Uni... There are signs that UK public spending outside London will be improving. At the moment public spending in the UK is guided by the Barnett formula, which even the author himself admits was a 'terrible mistake'... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnett_formula https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnett_formula > "The City of London, an entity unto itself is rife with fraud and corruption on a global scale, and essentially owns our politicians, much like Goldman Sachs basically owns the US government." The City of London is rife with fraud and corruption, but that's no argument for the EU, which is equally in bed with big business. The lobbying industry for the EU is massive, second only to the US. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/08/lobbyists-european-parliament-brussels-corporate https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/08/lobbyists-euro...
        nicky0 10y ago
        Also the UK parliament cannot be called a representative democracy. In the last general election 13% of voters voted for a UKIP candidate but the party won only 1 seat out of 650. A properly representative system would give them 84. Same with Green Party, 1 seat from 4%, should have 26. Meanwhile the Tories have an overall majority on 37% of the vote.
mattmanser 10y ago
Haha, what EU are you talking about? When did you vote for Juncker or anyone else on the commission? The commission where all the power of the EU is concentrated? It's got better than when it was at its worst, but the EU is still incredibly undemocratic and unaccountable for a Western institution. And let's not even start on how Germany suddenly seem to be in control of the Euro and seem to be essentially dictating monetary policy in Greece, Italy and Spain.
- toyg 10y ago
  > When did you vote for Juncker Juncker was the PPE candidate before the last round of EU elections. A majority of EU citizens voted PPE-member parties, so Juncker was elected Commission President. That's democracy in my book. All major European parties had a CP candidate going in the election, although only two had a realistic shot (Juncker for PPE and Martin Schulz for PSE); if you voted for Labour in UK, you voted for Schulz -- who is now President of the European Parliament btw, following a common European convention where opposition leaders are given oversight roles. That's real democracy in action IMHO. > commission where all the power of the EU is concentrated Was concentrated, pre-2009. The Commission now sets the legislative agenda, but Parliament has final say including veto. > the EU is still incredibly undemocratic and unaccountable Considering the institutions typically taking flak (Commission and Council) are direct emanation of national governments, I'd say the responsibility for that sits directly with national governments and their voters. Besides, if you don't like the fact that you "didn't vote for Juncker", you should be happy that Commission and Council will always include a representation from your country, no matter what anyone votes for, and it's usually on the topic that is of most interest to your country. > Germany suddenly seem to be in control of the Euro That's the real problem (which doesn't really affect the UK, but certainly the EU as a whole suffers from it). Everything else is a detail.
- jankor 10y ago
  Juncker was a leader of the party that won European Parliament elections. The rest of the commission is appointed by the elected Parliament as well. Let's compare this to let's say House of Lords. Germany was the main opponent of lowering the interest rate to 0 and launching QE, they obviously failed, no Germany is not suddenly in control of the Euro. I am myself not a big proponent of the EU, but let's keep criticism where it's due and don't raise conspiracies about sudden german control of the Euro.
vixen99 10y ago
Democracy in the EU? In 2011, the elected prime ministers of Italy and Greece were toppled in Brussels-backed coups. EU civil servants then pursued economic policies that would have been rejected at the ballot box. Note the response of the EU when a referendum went against closer integration. This happened in Denmark, France, Ireland and the Netherlands. The vote was either ignored or the electorate told to vote again until they got it 'right'. We see the same mindset at work with folk who want a second referendum for Brexit.
- vixen99 10y ago
  Noam Chomsky explains the EU's democracy deficit https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPbXWB0X1UQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPbXWB0X1UQ
- pbhjpbhj 10y ago
  >EU civil servants then pursued economic policies that would have been rejected at the ballot box. // Which seems exactly like the measure of democracy we have in the UK, no?
cronjobber 10y ago
Your points are technically true, but neither informs on whether Brexit happened over questions regarding sovereignty and immigration. Such questions obviously mattered and "the economy" (whatever and whoever that is) isn't the only concern of sovereign states. You could argue that in a democratic capitalist market economy, government should concern itself predominantly with non-economic concerns of the people over economic welfare of its billionaire class. This ideal isn't always matched by reality, of course.
- pbhjpbhj 10y ago
  >Such questions obviously mattered // In fact they mattered so much the the leave campaign flagrantly perjured themselves to convince the voters of a false reality in order to get the vote they wanted. Democracy! It ain't what it used to be. All the sovereign baloney bothers me too - I'm not better off as a lowly nobody that in having the Queen and PM May holding the sovereign power over me than I was having the relatively socialist EU powers over me, whether they were elected or not. I really don't get the argument beyond it being used as a veil for racism or a desire to return to The Empire.

Except the EU isn't undemocratic and immigration is good the economy.

by Xiol 10y ago

Except the EU isn't undemocratic and immigration is good the economy.

ZenoArrow 10y ago

> "Except the EU isn't undemocratic" What gives you that impression?

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
jerven 10y ago
If you call the UK a democracy then yes the EU is very democratic. Also assuming whitehall will produce less redtape than brussels is probably not going to be true :(
- ZenoArrow 10y ago
  > "If you call the UK a democracy then yes the EU is very democratic." Explain.
  - ionised 10y ago
    It's a plutocracy. Has been for hundreds of years. The UK has an unlected upper House of Lords. It has a monarch that technically still has a lot of power, even if it isn't excercised. London is the primary focus of the country's expenditure and may as well be a city state. The City of London, an entity unto itself is rife with fraud and corruption on a global scale, and essentially owns our politicians, much like Goldman Sachs basically owns the US government.
    - jerven 10y ago
      Plus the way that districts for the house of commons operate... leading to a less than representative commons.
    - ZenoArrow 10y ago
      > "It's a plutocracy. Has been for hundreds of years. > "The UK has an unlected upper House of Lords." The balance of power has shifted in those 'hundreds of years'. The House of Lords no longer has the same level of power it did 200 years ago. The Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949 shifted the bulk of the power for law making to the House of Commons. If you're not familiar with these bills, I recommend taking a look... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_Act_1911 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_Act_1911 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_Act_1949 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_Act_1949 > "It has a monarch that technically still has a lot of power, even if it isn't excercised." The moment the Monarch tries to exercise that power is the moment the Monarch seals their fate, as dissolution of the monarchy would almost inevitably follow soon after. I'd hardly call that 'power'. > "London is the primary focus of the country's expenditure and may as well be a city state." I agree that spending in London is disproportionately high compared to the rest of the country. However, it's worth remembering how big a part of the UK that London is. The population of Greater London is roughly 9.8 million. The population of the UK as a whole is roughly 64.1 million. Therefore, approximately 15% of everyone in the UK lives in London/Greater London. To put that in perspective, that's more people than live in the next 6 largest urban areas combined (Greater Manchester, West Midlands, West Yorkshire, Greater Glasgow, Liverpool, South Hampshire). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_urban_areas_in_the_United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_urban_areas_in_the_Uni... There are signs that UK public spending outside London will be improving. At the moment public spending in the UK is guided by the Barnett formula, which even the author himself admits was a 'terrible mistake'... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnett_formula https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnett_formula > "The City of London, an entity unto itself is rife with fraud and corruption on a global scale, and essentially owns our politicians, much like Goldman Sachs basically owns the US government." The City of London is rife with fraud and corruption, but that's no argument for the EU, which is equally in bed with big business. The lobbying industry for the EU is massive, second only to the US. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/08/lobbyists-european-parliament-brussels-corporate https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/08/lobbyists-euro...
      - nicky0 10y ago
        Also the UK parliament cannot be called a representative democracy. In the last general election 13% of voters voted for a UKIP candidate but the party won only 1 seat out of 650. A properly representative system would give them 84. Same with Green Party, 1 seat from 4%, should have 26. Meanwhile the Tories have an overall majority on 37% of the vote.

mattmanser 10y ago

Haha, what EU are you talking about? When did you vote for Juncker or anyone else on the commission? The commission where all the power of the EU is concentrated? It's got better than when it was at its worst, but the EU is still incredibly undemocratic and unaccountable for a Western institution. And let's not even start on how Germany suddenly seem to be in control of the Euro and seem to be essentially dictating monetary policy in Greece, Italy and Spain.

toyg 10y ago
> When did you vote for Juncker Juncker was the PPE candidate before the last round of EU elections. A majority of EU citizens voted PPE-member parties, so Juncker was elected Commission President. That's democracy in my book. All major European parties had a CP candidate going in the election, although only two had a realistic shot (Juncker for PPE and Martin Schulz for PSE); if you voted for Labour in UK, you voted for Schulz -- who is now President of the European Parliament btw, following a common European convention where opposition leaders are given oversight roles. That's real democracy in action IMHO. > commission where all the power of the EU is concentrated Was concentrated, pre-2009. The Commission now sets the legislative agenda, but Parliament has final say including veto. > the EU is still incredibly undemocratic and unaccountable Considering the institutions typically taking flak (Commission and Council) are direct emanation of national governments, I'd say the responsibility for that sits directly with national governments and their voters. Besides, if you don't like the fact that you "didn't vote for Juncker", you should be happy that Commission and Council will always include a representation from your country, no matter what anyone votes for, and it's usually on the topic that is of most interest to your country. > Germany suddenly seem to be in control of the Euro That's the real problem (which doesn't really affect the UK, but certainly the EU as a whole suffers from it). Everything else is a detail.
jankor 10y ago
Juncker was a leader of the party that won European Parliament elections. The rest of the commission is appointed by the elected Parliament as well. Let's compare this to let's say House of Lords. Germany was the main opponent of lowering the interest rate to 0 and launching QE, they obviously failed, no Germany is not suddenly in control of the Euro. I am myself not a big proponent of the EU, but let's keep criticism where it's due and don't raise conspiracies about sudden german control of the Euro.

vixen99 10y ago

Democracy in the EU? In 2011, the elected prime ministers of Italy and Greece were toppled in Brussels-backed coups. EU civil servants then pursued economic policies that would have been rejected at the ballot box. Note the response of the EU when a referendum went against closer integration. This happened in Denmark, France, Ireland and the Netherlands. The vote was either ignored or the electorate told to vote again until they got it 'right'. We see the same mindset at work with folk who want a second referendum for Brexit.

vixen99 10y ago
Noam Chomsky explains the EU's democracy deficit https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPbXWB0X1UQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPbXWB0X1UQ
pbhjpbhj 10y ago
>EU civil servants then pursued economic policies that would have been rejected at the ballot box. // Which seems exactly like the measure of democracy we have in the UK, no?

cronjobber 10y ago

Your points are technically true, but neither informs on whether Brexit happened over questions regarding sovereignty and immigration. Such questions obviously mattered and "the economy" (whatever and whoever that is) isn't the only concern of sovereign states. You could argue that in a democratic capitalist market economy, government should concern itself predominantly with non-economic concerns of the people over economic welfare of its billionaire class. This ideal isn't always matched by reality, of course.

pbhjpbhj 10y ago
>Such questions obviously mattered // In fact they mattered so much the the leave campaign flagrantly perjured themselves to convince the voters of a false reality in order to get the vote they wanted. Democracy! It ain't what it used to be. All the sovereign baloney bothers me too - I'm not better off as a lowly nobody that in having the Queen and PM May holding the sovereign power over me than I was having the relatively socialist EU powers over me, whether they were elected or not. I really don't get the argument beyond it being used as a veil for racism or a desire to return to The Empire.