5 ms·

(1) Britain's Prime Minister is the elected MP for the Maidenhead constituency in Berkshire. (2) The Queen is the Head of State but does not control our Democra

(1) Britain's Prime Minister is the elected MP for the Maidenhead constituency in Berkshire. (2) The Queen is the Head of State but does not control our Democracy - she doesn't even have a vote. (3) The House of Lords is actually a revising Chamber, but in this last case I am largely in agreement with you with regards to its democratic credentials. The EU on the other hand has a so-called "Parliament" which cannot propose legislation, cannot amend legislation and cannot repeal legislation. It has neither "Government" nor "Opposition", being essentially a rubber-stamping body for the unelected EU Commission. You seem to prefer this to the idea of allowing people a democratic choice simply because a minority of those people are voting for parties of whom you do not approve. However what happens when that unelected group (which is lacking in democratic restraints) starts to act in ways even more harmful than its current actions? You might not like Democracy, but at least it allows the possibility of correcting its mistakes.

anon1385 10y ago
>(1) Britain's Prime Minister is the elected MP for the Maidenhead constituency in Berkshire. It's worth pointing out that most of the people saying this about May are having a bit of fun. The Torys and right wing papers made a huge deal out of Gordon Brown being "unelected", but for some reason are silent when the same situation arrises with a Tory PM. >(2) The Queen is the Head of State but does not control our Democracy - she doesn't even have a vote She does have the power to veto laws though, and she has done so[1]. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jan/14/secret-papers-royals-veto-bills https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jan/14/secret-papers-roy...
toyg 10y ago
> Britain's Prime Minister is the elected MP for the Maidenhead constituency Britain's PM is technically a Royal appointment, nobody ever gets "elected to be PM". By convention, the party leader winning at the last election is nominated, hence bringing some democratic legitimacy to the role. However, whenever someone else gets the job in unorthodox ways, like May or Brown did through changing equilibria in their parties, such legitimacy is clearly lacking. The only way we have to express that situation is by saying that the current PM is "unelected", and the PM is supposed to rectify this state by calling for a general election where he or she will obtain popular legitimacy. Anyone following UK politics for more than 10 minutes knows perfectly well how this works, and trying to fight the definition through pedantry is, by itself, a partisan statement. > The EU on the other hand has a so-called "Parliament" which cannot propose legislation But it can veto it, blocking anything they want. > cannot amend legislation In practice it does, through the various committees "helping" the Commission. > cannot repeal legislation That is a problem, but it's not terrible in itself; a Parliament who'd want a certain directive dropped would express a popular will that the Council would likely share; which in turn would make the Commission prepare a superseding directive. > It has neither "Government" nor "Opposition" In practice it does. The Commission President is the candidate of the party winning the largest amount of seats, and the Parliament President is the candidate of the runner-up party. The most popular party will naturally be in government in most countries, hence dictating the agenda in Commission and Council. The Parliament can try blocking legislation, much like a national opposition would do. > being essentially a rubber-stamping body That's unfair. Directives can change quite dramatically when going through committees; in some cases, the final result is almost the opposite of what was first introduced, to the horror of commissioners who then drop them. The stats about votes don't reflect the fact that, since veto powers were introduced in 2009, directives without Parliament support simply don't come up for a vote, because every vote against the Commission weakens it. Much like a government would do... > the unelected EU Commission. The Commission President is an elected MEP who is nominated as candidate by the party before the election; and the Commissioners are nominated by elected governments through the Council. > what happens when that unelected group [...] starts to act in ways even more harmful You leave. Any member state can leave at any time by triggering the famous art. 50. The EU has no army to stop you from doing that. Of course, if your own national elites don't really want to do it, that's a problem; but that's a problem with your national elite, not with "European tyrants".
- zigzigzag 10y ago
  As you point out - the EU Parliament has so little power that if it ever amends a law in a way the Commission doesn't like, the whole thing is scrapped so they can try again. Article 50 isn't a serious thing. The guy who wrote it admitted he assumed it'd never be used and he didn't put any thought into it, as it was only put in there to shut up the Brits. The EU has never seriously considered the possibility any country would actually leave and the constitutional possibility of doing so was only added recently, in a half-arsed way.
  - toyg 10y ago
    > the EU Parliament has so little power that [...] the whole thing is scrapped so they can try again. Parliament gets exactly what it wants, or no one gets anything. That's an awesome power in my book! > Article 50 isn't a serious thing. Well it's on the books, it's law, so it's as serious as they come. Should Brexit ever come to pass, it will be thanks to that article. As an euroskeptic, you should love it! > The guy who wrote it [...] didn't put any thought into it That's a feature shared by a lot of laws at all levels, I'm afraid. They are still laws. We don't pick and choose what we obey depending on our opinion of whether the legislator put in enough effort. When laws are unclear or badly written, there are ways to correct them. There is even a procedure to correct that article, it just requires agreement with the other member countries. But tbh, if you want to leave sooner than what art.50 states, I don't think anyone will stop you -- indeed nobody can, because, again, no army. > The EU has never seriously considered the possibility any country would actually leave It wouldn't matter anyway, because "the EU" is all about consensus among member states, which really are the ones dictating the agenda at all times. Without army or police, there is nothing stopping countries to leave at any moment. Despite that, 27 countries are still in there and more are applying, so "the EU" must be doing something right -- unless you believe in lizard people or "mass brainwashing"...
  - blue1 10y ago
    > Article 50 isn't a serious thing. The guy who wrote it admitted he assumed it'd never be used and he didn't put any thought into it "The guy" is Giuliano Amato, former PM of Italy. If you care to read the interview he gave on this topic, he never said he did not put any thought into it. Just that it was designed to be a difficult procedure.

anon1385 10y ago

>(1) Britain's Prime Minister is the elected MP for the Maidenhead constituency in Berkshire. It's worth pointing out that most of the people saying this about May are having a bit of fun. The Torys and right wing papers made a huge deal out of Gordon Brown being "unelected", but for some reason are silent when the same situation arrises with a Tory PM. >(2) The Queen is the Head of State but does not control our Democracy - she doesn't even have a vote She does have the power to veto laws though, and she has done so[1]. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jan/14/secret-papers-royals-veto-bills https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jan/14/secret-papers-roy...

toyg 10y ago

> Britain's Prime Minister is the elected MP for the Maidenhead constituency Britain's PM is technically a Royal appointment, nobody ever gets "elected to be PM". By convention, the party leader winning at the last election is nominated, hence bringing some democratic legitimacy to the role. However, whenever someone else gets the job in unorthodox ways, like May or Brown did through changing equilibria in their parties, such legitimacy is clearly lacking. The only way we have to express that situation is by saying that the current PM is "unelected", and the PM is supposed to rectify this state by calling for a general election where he or she will obtain popular legitimacy. Anyone following UK politics for more than 10 minutes knows perfectly well how this works, and trying to fight the definition through pedantry is, by itself, a partisan statement. > The EU on the other hand has a so-called "Parliament" which cannot propose legislation But it can veto it, blocking anything they want. > cannot amend legislation In practice it does, through the various committees "helping" the Commission. > cannot repeal legislation That is a problem, but it's not terrible in itself; a Parliament who'd want a certain directive dropped would express a popular will that the Council would likely share; which in turn would make the Commission prepare a superseding directive. > It has neither "Government" nor "Opposition" In practice it does. The Commission President is the candidate of the party winning the largest amount of seats, and the Parliament President is the candidate of the runner-up party. The most popular party will naturally be in government in most countries, hence dictating the agenda in Commission and Council. The Parliament can try blocking legislation, much like a national opposition would do. > being essentially a rubber-stamping body That's unfair. Directives can change quite dramatically when going through committees; in some cases, the final result is almost the opposite of what was first introduced, to the horror of commissioners who then drop them. The stats about votes don't reflect the fact that, since veto powers were introduced in 2009, directives without Parliament support simply don't come up for a vote, because every vote against the Commission weakens it. Much like a government would do... > the unelected EU Commission. The Commission President is an elected MEP who is nominated as candidate by the party before the election; and the Commissioners are nominated by elected governments through the Council. > what happens when that unelected group [...] starts to act in ways even more harmful You leave. Any member state can leave at any time by triggering the famous art. 50. The EU has no army to stop you from doing that. Of course, if your own national elites don't really want to do it, that's a problem; but that's a problem with your national elite, not with "European tyrants".

zigzigzag 10y ago
As you point out - the EU Parliament has so little power that if it ever amends a law in a way the Commission doesn't like, the whole thing is scrapped so they can try again. Article 50 isn't a serious thing. The guy who wrote it admitted he assumed it'd never be used and he didn't put any thought into it, as it was only put in there to shut up the Brits. The EU has never seriously considered the possibility any country would actually leave and the constitutional possibility of doing so was only added recently, in a half-arsed way.
- toyg 10y ago
  > the EU Parliament has so little power that [...] the whole thing is scrapped so they can try again. Parliament gets exactly what it wants, or no one gets anything. That's an awesome power in my book! > Article 50 isn't a serious thing. Well it's on the books, it's law, so it's as serious as they come. Should Brexit ever come to pass, it will be thanks to that article. As an euroskeptic, you should love it! > The guy who wrote it [...] didn't put any thought into it That's a feature shared by a lot of laws at all levels, I'm afraid. They are still laws. We don't pick and choose what we obey depending on our opinion of whether the legislator put in enough effort. When laws are unclear or badly written, there are ways to correct them. There is even a procedure to correct that article, it just requires agreement with the other member countries. But tbh, if you want to leave sooner than what art.50 states, I don't think anyone will stop you -- indeed nobody can, because, again, no army. > The EU has never seriously considered the possibility any country would actually leave It wouldn't matter anyway, because "the EU" is all about consensus among member states, which really are the ones dictating the agenda at all times. Without army or police, there is nothing stopping countries to leave at any moment. Despite that, 27 countries are still in there and more are applying, so "the EU" must be doing something right -- unless you believe in lizard people or "mass brainwashing"...
- blue1 10y ago
  > Article 50 isn't a serious thing. The guy who wrote it admitted he assumed it'd never be used and he didn't put any thought into it "The guy" is Giuliano Amato, former PM of Italy. If you care to read the interview he gave on this topic, he never said he did not put any thought into it. Just that it was designed to be a difficult procedure.