3 ms·

this is not entirely accurate, it depends on the policy area: the parliament shuffling bullshit is part of the treaties, so France has a veto there whereas mos

this is not entirely accurate, it depends on the policy area: the parliament shuffling bullshit is part of the treaties, so France has a veto there whereas most policy is done via QMV, so the veto isn't a problem, especially if you can wait for a compliant set of governments once it's implemented: getting another majority to initiate the legislation to remove it is even harder by the very nature of the mechanism

dijit 4y ago
Yes, but getting a qualified Majority is also very difficult 55% of countries by population and 65% of countries of total need to vote yes: https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/council-eu/voting-system/voting-calculator/ https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/council-eu/voting-system/...
- blibble 4y ago
  yes, but you only need it once and then your legislation is essentially eternally protected because you'd need the same QM to remove it, which will practically never happen the system empowers the legislators of the past over the legislators of today, which is fundamentally undemocratic
  - sieabahlpark 4y ago
    The EU isn't democratic in the first place. Partly is the reason why it needs to go away.
    - dijit 4y ago
      You're obviously here for a reasonable discussion. The only people who benefit from the EU dissolving are nationalists and enemies of the block of countries that make up the EU (Russia, China and to some extent the Allied US whom would prefer us not to be united). Which are you?
      - Fidelix 4y ago
        I'm not a nationalist, I'm an immigrant in the UK. I'm simply not fond of unelected authoritarians, neither am I fond of fascists governing my community from far away. Which are you?
        dijit 4y ago
        > I'm simply not fond of unelected authoritarians You should be very concerned about our House of Lords, our Monarchy and the cronyism and corruption that is currently plaguing our elected officials, and lovely "unelected" advisors to the prime minister such as Dominic Cummings, who's policies used to be followed almost as religious dogma. You can worry about the "big bad EU" when you understand the EU more. I'm aware that it is a bold and inflamatory claim to say you don't understand it enough; but I feel confident making such a statement as anybody who has spent more than 20 minutes researching how the EU works would know that it's folly to say that they're "unelected authoritarians". Lets start with the unelected bit: EU Commission is elected by Parliment. (IE; indirectly elected) EU Parliament is directly elected by you, the individual, they are your MEPs, and they're elected in one of the most democratic ways we know of. EU Council is heads of state (IE; Elected) Council of the European Union is non-heads of governments of European countries. (IE; Elected). > neither am I fond of fascists Might want to look up what that word means, the very idea of a united EU is the opposite of fascism. Fascism is characterised by nationalism. > governing my community from far away. The distance between Luxembourg and London is less than the distance between London and Glasgow.. (489km vs 556km as the crow flies) I'm British, I was a little bit nationalistic before I left the UK and realised that I was foolish. I'm not accusing you of being a fool but you're certainly misinformed. I find it's better to not throw stones if you live in a glass house.
        blibble 4y ago
        the irony is that you're criticising the parent for not understanding the EU, but then you seem to have a limited understanding of how your own country works in reality (vs. someone doing quick read of its description on wikipedia) the modern house of lords is advisory and completely subordinate to the commons it is a glorified select committee, there to scrutinise the law and slow it down the commons can override it, but to do that it has to wait it's essentially the EU parliament: the inferior chamber that can slightly amend and block law the sovereign is similar, the commons is superior and last time there was a fundamental disagreement the country became a republic the UK is full of contradictions like this: formally we're theocracy ruled by an absolute monarch appointed by god but that's not how it works in practice vs. say the US, which is the complete opposite on paper (strict republic, limits on power, strict separation of church and state), but then has presidents constantly referring to god and religion being a huge thing in politics > I find it's better to not throw stones if you live in glass houses. yes, quite
  - dijit 4y ago
    Not to pick a point, but that's true of all legislation. Making something illegal is much easier than making something that was previously illegal: legal. That's just how legislation works in all systems. One need only look at constitutions. "undemocratic" is a stretch, people are still voting for representatives, representatives of the people are still voting. Nobody is deciding something by themselves. Unless we've changed what democracy means.
    - blibble 4y ago
      that is definitely not how it works in all systems a future government should be able to roll back legislation as easily as the past government implemented it, otherwise the process fundamentally undemocratic this is true for the UK constitutions that require super-majorities to change are fundamentally undemocratic the US founding fathers considered this to be a feature to prevent mob rule... they were probably right here but it's really quite hard to argue that elevating the principles of dead slave owners 200 years ago (extreme example) over those of voters alive today is democratic
      - dijit 4y ago
    - raxxorrax 4y ago
      The distance to representatives does matter a lot. The EU even agrees with the principle of subsidiary policy making.

dijit 4y ago

Yes, but getting a qualified Majority is also very difficult 55% of countries by population and 65% of countries of total need to vote yes: https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/council-eu/voting-system/voting-calculator/ https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/council-eu/voting-system/...

blibble 4y ago
yes, but you only need it once and then your legislation is essentially eternally protected because you'd need the same QM to remove it, which will practically never happen the system empowers the legislators of the past over the legislators of today, which is fundamentally undemocratic
- sieabahlpark 4y ago
  The EU isn't democratic in the first place. Partly is the reason why it needs to go away.
  - dijit 4y ago
    You're obviously here for a reasonable discussion. The only people who benefit from the EU dissolving are nationalists and enemies of the block of countries that make up the EU (Russia, China and to some extent the Allied US whom would prefer us not to be united). Which are you?
    - Fidelix 4y ago
      I'm not a nationalist, I'm an immigrant in the UK. I'm simply not fond of unelected authoritarians, neither am I fond of fascists governing my community from far away. Which are you?
      - dijit 4y ago
        > I'm simply not fond of unelected authoritarians You should be very concerned about our House of Lords, our Monarchy and the cronyism and corruption that is currently plaguing our elected officials, and lovely "unelected" advisors to the prime minister such as Dominic Cummings, who's policies used to be followed almost as religious dogma. You can worry about the "big bad EU" when you understand the EU more. I'm aware that it is a bold and inflamatory claim to say you don't understand it enough; but I feel confident making such a statement as anybody who has spent more than 20 minutes researching how the EU works would know that it's folly to say that they're "unelected authoritarians". Lets start with the unelected bit: EU Commission is elected by Parliment. (IE; indirectly elected) EU Parliament is directly elected by you, the individual, they are your MEPs, and they're elected in one of the most democratic ways we know of. EU Council is heads of state (IE; Elected) Council of the European Union is non-heads of governments of European countries. (IE; Elected). > neither am I fond of fascists Might want to look up what that word means, the very idea of a united EU is the opposite of fascism. Fascism is characterised by nationalism. > governing my community from far away. The distance between Luxembourg and London is less than the distance between London and Glasgow.. (489km vs 556km as the crow flies) I'm British, I was a little bit nationalistic before I left the UK and realised that I was foolish. I'm not accusing you of being a fool but you're certainly misinformed. I find it's better to not throw stones if you live in a glass house.
        blibble 4y ago
        the irony is that you're criticising the parent for not understanding the EU, but then you seem to have a limited understanding of how your own country works in reality (vs. someone doing quick read of its description on wikipedia) the modern house of lords is advisory and completely subordinate to the commons it is a glorified select committee, there to scrutinise the law and slow it down the commons can override it, but to do that it has to wait it's essentially the EU parliament: the inferior chamber that can slightly amend and block law the sovereign is similar, the commons is superior and last time there was a fundamental disagreement the country became a republic the UK is full of contradictions like this: formally we're theocracy ruled by an absolute monarch appointed by god but that's not how it works in practice vs. say the US, which is the complete opposite on paper (strict republic, limits on power, strict separation of church and state), but then has presidents constantly referring to god and religion being a huge thing in politics > I find it's better to not throw stones if you live in glass houses. yes, quite
- dijit 4y ago
  Not to pick a point, but that's true of all legislation. Making something illegal is much easier than making something that was previously illegal: legal. That's just how legislation works in all systems. One need only look at constitutions. "undemocratic" is a stretch, people are still voting for representatives, representatives of the people are still voting. Nobody is deciding something by themselves. Unless we've changed what democracy means.
  - blibble 4y ago
    that is definitely not how it works in all systems a future government should be able to roll back legislation as easily as the past government implemented it, otherwise the process fundamentally undemocratic this is true for the UK constitutions that require super-majorities to change are fundamentally undemocratic the US founding fathers considered this to be a feature to prevent mob rule... they were probably right here but it's really quite hard to argue that elevating the principles of dead slave owners 200 years ago (extreme example) over those of voters alive today is democratic
    - dijit 4y ago
  - raxxorrax 4y ago
    The distance to representatives does matter a lot. The EU even agrees with the principle of subsidiary policy making.