3 ms·

The only part of this comment that is conjecture as opposed to verifiable fact is the following: 'people understood that'. Why the downvotes? Inconvenient trut

The only part of this comment that is conjecture as opposed to verifiable fact is the following: 'people understood that'. Why the downvotes? Inconvenient truths perhaps?

andybak 9y ago
I didn't engage with that aspect of your argument. There's two aspects of it. I'll give you credit for not invoking the "they" side of this directly but I think it's a huge factor in all this so I want to address that first - whilst acknowledging that wasn't the point you yourself were making. I heard many variations on "they are making decisions for us" and find the words "they" and "us" in that sentence fascinating. We draw imaginary lines and boundaries all the time - what Kurt Vonnegut called "granfalloon". So the notion of "Britishness" kicks in when discussing Europe - and therefore the people making the decisions are "they" and if we withdraw then suddenly it's "us" making the decisions. But this is a psychological illusion. "Them" and "us" expands and contracts depending on the context and it's part of a very deep and ancient emotional response that is easily triggered. I high-fived someone at a party last week when I found out they were also a Python developer. Some part of my brain decided they were therefore "family" or "tribe". We do this all the time but we also equally spend emotional energy deciding who is outside that boundary. So - in a different context the same people who cheer British independence from Europe will find themselves bemoaning the faceless bureaucrats of Westminster, or "that lot" in the local Council. This isn't me being I snob - I do it myself. It's a universal human weakness. My point is that this primate pack instinct is so deeply ingrained that it takes a huge effort to resist it's pull. Now - on to the point you actually made (with apologies for using you as a straw man). How direct is the democracy in the EU? Well. It's less than the directness of democracy in the UK itself but not by much. All modern democracies are indirect to one degree or another - and this is a good thing. Constant direct democracy wouldn't necessarily result in a better outcome. Just look at the situation in some US states where legislation has allowed people to force issues to be voted on at the state level leading to some crazy decisions hoisted upon the state. And that's not even bringing in the problems caused by the elect-ability of DA's, Sheriffs etc. which is well documented. Democracy SHOULD be limited. It's a check against tyranny - not a continual opinion poll. The wise have always understood this - hence the electoral college and the incredibly convoluted system designed by Cleisthenes at the birth of democracy - trytties and demes were designed to break up traditional kinship based-allegiances which would have smothered the baby at birth. So - the question isn't whether the EU is more democratic than the UK - it's what the optimum level of democracy is and whether I'd rather have my laws made by a bunch of people in Westminster I'll never meet - or a bunch of people in Brussels I'll never meet. I don't have any particular reason to favour the strangers in Westminster. EDIT - my dinner is ready and I don't have time to proof read the above for even basic coherence and logic so please factor that in to some degree. I don't write well when I'm hungry.

The only part of this comment that is conjecture as opposed to verifiable fact is the following: 'people understood that'. Why the downvotes? Inconvenient truths perhaps?

andybak 9y ago

I didn't engage with that aspect of your argument. There's two aspects of it. I'll give you credit for not invoking the "they" side of this directly but I think it's a huge factor in all this so I want to address that first - whilst acknowledging that wasn't the point you yourself were making. I heard many variations on "they are making decisions for us" and find the words "they" and "us" in that sentence fascinating. We draw imaginary lines and boundaries all the time - what Kurt Vonnegut called "granfalloon". So the notion of "Britishness" kicks in when discussing Europe - and therefore the people making the decisions are "they" and if we withdraw then suddenly it's "us" making the decisions. But this is a psychological illusion. "Them" and "us" expands and contracts depending on the context and it's part of a very deep and ancient emotional response that is easily triggered. I high-fived someone at a party last week when I found out they were also a Python developer. Some part of my brain decided they were therefore "family" or "tribe". We do this all the time but we also equally spend emotional energy deciding who is outside that boundary. So - in a different context the same people who cheer British independence from Europe will find themselves bemoaning the faceless bureaucrats of Westminster, or "that lot" in the local Council. This isn't me being I snob - I do it myself. It's a universal human weakness. My point is that this primate pack instinct is so deeply ingrained that it takes a huge effort to resist it's pull. Now - on to the point you actually made (with apologies for using you as a straw man). How direct is the democracy in the EU? Well. It's less than the directness of democracy in the UK itself but not by much. All modern democracies are indirect to one degree or another - and this is a good thing. Constant direct democracy wouldn't necessarily result in a better outcome. Just look at the situation in some US states where legislation has allowed people to force issues to be voted on at the state level leading to some crazy decisions hoisted upon the state. And that's not even bringing in the problems caused by the elect-ability of DA's, Sheriffs etc. which is well documented. Democracy SHOULD be limited. It's a check against tyranny - not a continual opinion poll. The wise have always understood this - hence the electoral college and the incredibly convoluted system designed by Cleisthenes at the birth of democracy - trytties and demes were designed to break up traditional kinship based-allegiances which would have smothered the baby at birth. So - the question isn't whether the EU is more democratic than the UK - it's what the optimum level of democracy is and whether I'd rather have my laws made by a bunch of people in Westminster I'll never meet - or a bunch of people in Brussels I'll never meet. I don't have any particular reason to favour the strangers in Westminster. EDIT - my dinner is ready and I don't have time to proof read the above for even basic coherence and logic so please factor that in to some degree. I don't write well when I'm hungry.