3 ms·

> The existence of unelected political appointees does not make the EU non-democratic. not alone, no, but when combined with: - a parliament made up of dir

> The existence of unelected political appointees does not make the EU non-democratic. not alone, no, but when combined with: - a parliament made up of directly elected representatives that can't legislate, modify or repeal previously passed acts - the ratcheting of transfer of powers in direct opposition to what the people of Europe want (ignoring No referendums on the Constitution of Europe and passing it through regardless): the "Monnet method" - deliberate "degenerative proportionality": a Maltese voter has 30x the representation of a German (makes no sense in the organ that's supposed to represent the people) - the concentration of executive power via the mass transfer of power from elected national parliaments to the council it's beyond a joke to say it's democratic > If you don't like it you should push for reforming the EU into a properly democratic single country. I don't have a problem with the idea of a federated Europe, as long as the people voted for it the problem the EU has is: the peoples of Europe wouldn't, so it's being done by slowly by deception instead and by design it's impossible to revert (unless you leave entirely, which is extremely difficult) > Also, if you think the EU is entirely undemocratic, then let me ask you: when was the last time you voted for anything in the World Trade Organization, NATO, or the United Nations? I don't remember these organisations pretending to be democratic (let alone having legions of fans online stating that they are)

kmeisthax 5y ago
>I don't remember these organisations pretending to be democratic (let alone having legions of fans online stating that they are) Does it matter? They're still a bigger stumbling block to democracy than the EU's various collections of appointed positions are. All of the anti-democratic features you mentioned are present in other international bodies, but amped up to 11. It is unfair to single out the EU as wholly responsible for this. Also, I feel the need to defend the EU on one other point: ratcheting. If you have a free trade area in which member nations are allowed to pick-and-choose each little bit of the EU treaties, then you lose the benefit of the EU, and just get a bunch of top-heavy bureaucracy with no other benefit. Furthermore, the things that the EU tends to be really adamant about - such as freedom-of-movement[0] - are essential for making the bloc work at all. The EU has such dogged fans because people don't want things like freedom-of-movement taken away from them, and nobody's made a serious proposal for fixing the EU's problems aside from "leave and go back to having borders everywhere" or "federal Europe". Alternatively, they're Americans who happen to oppose strict immigration control[1] and, thus, oppose euroskeptics purely by association. [0] This is also why the UK's original "free trade without freedom of movement" proposal was shot down so quickly. The biggest mistake the west made was convincing the whole world to let goods move faster than people do. This constitutes a transfer of power from labor to capital. [1] As you might have already guessed from the previous footnote I am an American who opposes strict immigration control. I'll at least entertain the thought of the EU needing reforms, though.

kmeisthax 5y ago

>I don't remember these organisations pretending to be democratic (let alone having legions of fans online stating that they are) Does it matter? They're still a bigger stumbling block to democracy than the EU's various collections of appointed positions are. All of the anti-democratic features you mentioned are present in other international bodies, but amped up to 11. It is unfair to single out the EU as wholly responsible for this. Also, I feel the need to defend the EU on one other point: ratcheting. If you have a free trade area in which member nations are allowed to pick-and-choose each little bit of the EU treaties, then you lose the benefit of the EU, and just get a bunch of top-heavy bureaucracy with no other benefit. Furthermore, the things that the EU tends to be really adamant about - such as freedom-of-movement[0] - are essential for making the bloc work at all. The EU has such dogged fans because people don't want things like freedom-of-movement taken away from them, and nobody's made a serious proposal for fixing the EU's problems aside from "leave and go back to having borders everywhere" or "federal Europe". Alternatively, they're Americans who happen to oppose strict immigration control[1] and, thus, oppose euroskeptics purely by association. [0] This is also why the UK's original "free trade without freedom of movement" proposal was shot down so quickly. The biggest mistake the west made was convincing the whole world to let goods move faster than people do. This constitutes a transfer of power from labor to capital. [1] As you might have already guessed from the previous footnote I am an American who opposes strict immigration control. I'll at least entertain the thought of the EU needing reforms, though.