6 ms·

1) Many people. Look at Brexit. You can argue until your face turns blue that it's bad for Britain, it most likely is, but at least they don't have unelected po

1) Many people. Look at Brexit. You can argue until your face turns blue that it's bad for Britain, it most likely is, but at least they don't have unelected politicians setting rules. It's pro-self-determination no matter how you look at it. 2) Why should Britain stand up for Hong Kong? They're imperialists while they hold on to it, and then cowards when they give it back to China and say? 3) Almost invariable yes. But then that makes you an imperialist slave driver. Did bad things happen? Absolutely. Terrible, horrible things. But look at how things are now.

pjc50 9y ago
> at least they don't have unelected politicians setting rules I have some bad news for you about the House of Lords.
- muninn_ 9y ago
  Yes. But that's a far cry from somebody in Brussels creating laws and policies.
  - s73ver 9y ago
    You mean the European Parliament? The body to whom British citizens did in fact elect members to?
    - lmm 9y ago
      No, the European Commission, the body on which Britain's entire representation for many years was twice-disgraced former MP Peter Hamilton. Who voted for that?
      - s73ver 9y ago
        Presumably the people who voted for Britain's ruling government at the time.
        lmm 9y ago
        The people of Britain vote for their local MPs, who vote for a government, who appointed a European Commissioner. Theoretically that's a chain of accountability (and purely theoretically it's also possible for the European Parliament to dismiss the Commission), but it's too weak for democracy to apply in practice - Mandelson could not have held an office that the British public had any real control over. The British civil service has a similarly limited level of accountability which is exactly why they're required to be politically neutral - it's a reasonable arrangement for a technical regulatory body, but obviously unsuitable for general-purpose lawmaking. Unfortunately the EU has subtly slid from the former into the latter without reassessing whether its institutions and conventions were still suitable.
- platinumrad 9y ago
  The House of Lords is an absolute mess of an institution but at least they can't actually pass or prevent the passage of legislation. Their powers are limited to amending bills, making recommendations, and delaying legislation.
  - vacri 9y ago
    That's some serious hair-splitting. "They don't set rules, they just amend bills"...
    - platinumrad 9y ago
      It's a very limited form of amending (they can't touch money bills for example) and the House of Commons can always get its way in the end as amendments can eaisly be rejected by the "lower" house.
- rayiner 9y ago
  Right, but the difference is that the British have spent the last couple of centuries diminishing the power of the House of Lords, not seeking to aggrandize it.
yongjik 9y ago
I love how you say Africans would have been better under benevolent European rule and also say Brits should free themselves from European rule (however good it is), in a single comment.
- muninn_ 9y ago
  Well, I'm looking at things how they currently are in 2017. I support self-determination of Africans (and subsequently all people), but that doesn't mean they wouldn't be better off right now under British rule. The British (and others, like the Dutch) never should have colonized Africa (or anywhere else), but they did. Likewise, I can acknowledge that the British are probably worse-off for leaving the EU, but also support their self-determination. I'm patiently waiting for the "but muh EU!1!" down votes to come in, even though I'm stating that the British are probably better off in the EU.
  - logfromblammo 9y ago
    How does that old faxlore go? Heaven: British cops German mechanics French chefs Italian lovers Swiss administrators Hell: German cops French mechanics British chefs Swiss lovers Italian administrators Some nation-tribes are better at governance than others. Their countries might be objectively better if they were administered by another nation-tribe, but then it wouldn't be their country. Rhodesia was certainly a better international trading partner than Zimbabwe is now, but at least Zimbabwe is unequivocally owned by the Zimbabweans. Other countries don't exist solely for the benefit of their international trade partners.
    - gorkonsine 9y ago
      That old faxlore is obsolete I think. From what I've heard, German cops are actually really good these days. Unlike some countries, they're not very likely to shoot first and ask questions later. And the reputation of British cops seems to have gone downhill lately. Also, I didn't think British chefs were bad (Gordon Ramsay is British after all); the main problem with British cuisine is that most of it just borrows from elsewhere, much like American food, and isn't uniquely British. So I think an updated list would be: Heaven: German cops, German mechanics, French chefs, Italian lovers, Swiss administrators Hell: American cops, French mechanics, ??? chefs (Canadian perhaps?), British or American lovers, American administrators
eveningcoffee 9y ago
>but at least they don't have unelected politicians setting rules I guess you are referring to the European Commission that is an executive branch of the EU institutions i.e. a government. Guess what - in most cases people have no control over who becomes a member of the government - in best case they can vote for a person who becomes a leader of the government (say president in US). In that regard the selection of the members of the EU government is more transparent and demographic and perhaps also less effective. President of European Commission: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Commission#Appointment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Commission#Appointmen... Commissioners: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Commissioner#Appointment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Commissioner#Appointm... It is sad that many people do not understand how EU institutions work part due to their ignorance but also due to foreign propaganda. But I do not argue against British (or any) people to have a right to choose their own way (but I am also not sure that this is what they actually wanted).
- muninn_ 9y ago
  And here we go already.... > in most cases people have no control over who becomes a member of the government in best case they can vote for a person who becomes a leader of the government Uh, do you not support democracy? Because how else do you have a democracy except to vote for elected representatives, and you have DIRECT control of doing so through voting? I'm not really anti-EU. I don't much care, whatever keeps that continent from boiling over in war is probably a good thing, but seriously don't come in here and say that something like the European Commissions is a more democratic institution than voting for your representatives and leaders are. That's intellectually dishonest.
  - dullgiulio 9y ago
    What are you on about? The European Parliament members are absolutely voted for. Parliament in turn elects the executive branch. It is the same in many countries. By that twisted logic, Theresa May was very much unelected. Probably even more so now...
  - eveningcoffee 9y ago
dang 9y ago
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14664817 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14664817 and marked it off-topic.

pjc50 9y ago

> at least they don't have unelected politicians setting rules I have some bad news for you about the House of Lords.

muninn_ 9y ago
Yes. But that's a far cry from somebody in Brussels creating laws and policies.
- s73ver 9y ago
  You mean the European Parliament? The body to whom British citizens did in fact elect members to?
  - lmm 9y ago
    No, the European Commission, the body on which Britain's entire representation for many years was twice-disgraced former MP Peter Hamilton. Who voted for that?
    - s73ver 9y ago
      Presumably the people who voted for Britain's ruling government at the time.
      - lmm 9y ago
        The people of Britain vote for their local MPs, who vote for a government, who appointed a European Commissioner. Theoretically that's a chain of accountability (and purely theoretically it's also possible for the European Parliament to dismiss the Commission), but it's too weak for democracy to apply in practice - Mandelson could not have held an office that the British public had any real control over. The British civil service has a similarly limited level of accountability which is exactly why they're required to be politically neutral - it's a reasonable arrangement for a technical regulatory body, but obviously unsuitable for general-purpose lawmaking. Unfortunately the EU has subtly slid from the former into the latter without reassessing whether its institutions and conventions were still suitable.
platinumrad 9y ago
The House of Lords is an absolute mess of an institution but at least they can't actually pass or prevent the passage of legislation. Their powers are limited to amending bills, making recommendations, and delaying legislation.
- vacri 9y ago
  That's some serious hair-splitting. "They don't set rules, they just amend bills"...
  - platinumrad 9y ago
    It's a very limited form of amending (they can't touch money bills for example) and the House of Commons can always get its way in the end as amendments can eaisly be rejected by the "lower" house.
rayiner 9y ago
Right, but the difference is that the British have spent the last couple of centuries diminishing the power of the House of Lords, not seeking to aggrandize it.

yongjik 9y ago

I love how you say Africans would have been better under benevolent European rule and also say Brits should free themselves from European rule (however good it is), in a single comment.

muninn_ 9y ago
Well, I'm looking at things how they currently are in 2017. I support self-determination of Africans (and subsequently all people), but that doesn't mean they wouldn't be better off right now under British rule. The British (and others, like the Dutch) never should have colonized Africa (or anywhere else), but they did. Likewise, I can acknowledge that the British are probably worse-off for leaving the EU, but also support their self-determination. I'm patiently waiting for the "but muh EU!1!" down votes to come in, even though I'm stating that the British are probably better off in the EU.
- logfromblammo 9y ago
  How does that old faxlore go? Heaven: British cops German mechanics French chefs Italian lovers Swiss administrators Hell: German cops French mechanics British chefs Swiss lovers Italian administrators Some nation-tribes are better at governance than others. Their countries might be objectively better if they were administered by another nation-tribe, but then it wouldn't be their country. Rhodesia was certainly a better international trading partner than Zimbabwe is now, but at least Zimbabwe is unequivocally owned by the Zimbabweans. Other countries don't exist solely for the benefit of their international trade partners.
  - gorkonsine 9y ago
    That old faxlore is obsolete I think. From what I've heard, German cops are actually really good these days. Unlike some countries, they're not very likely to shoot first and ask questions later. And the reputation of British cops seems to have gone downhill lately. Also, I didn't think British chefs were bad (Gordon Ramsay is British after all); the main problem with British cuisine is that most of it just borrows from elsewhere, much like American food, and isn't uniquely British. So I think an updated list would be: Heaven: German cops, German mechanics, French chefs, Italian lovers, Swiss administrators Hell: American cops, French mechanics, ??? chefs (Canadian perhaps?), British or American lovers, American administrators

eveningcoffee 9y ago

>but at least they don't have unelected politicians setting rules I guess you are referring to the European Commission that is an executive branch of the EU institutions i.e. a government. Guess what - in most cases people have no control over who becomes a member of the government - in best case they can vote for a person who becomes a leader of the government (say president in US). In that regard the selection of the members of the EU government is more transparent and demographic and perhaps also less effective. President of European Commission: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Commission#Appointment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Commission#Appointmen... Commissioners: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Commissioner#Appointment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Commissioner#Appointm... It is sad that many people do not understand how EU institutions work part due to their ignorance but also due to foreign propaganda. But I do not argue against British (or any) people to have a right to choose their own way (but I am also not sure that this is what they actually wanted).

muninn_ 9y ago
And here we go already.... > in most cases people have no control over who becomes a member of the government in best case they can vote for a person who becomes a leader of the government Uh, do you not support democracy? Because how else do you have a democracy except to vote for elected representatives, and you have DIRECT control of doing so through voting? I'm not really anti-EU. I don't much care, whatever keeps that continent from boiling over in war is probably a good thing, but seriously don't come in here and say that something like the European Commissions is a more democratic institution than voting for your representatives and leaders are. That's intellectually dishonest.
- dullgiulio 9y ago
  What are you on about? The European Parliament members are absolutely voted for. Parliament in turn elects the executive branch. It is the same in many countries. By that twisted logic, Theresa May was very much unelected. Probably even more so now...
- eveningcoffee 9y ago

dang 9y ago

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14664817 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14664817 and marked it off-topic.