Why do the Brits have this idea that the EU is undemocratic?

I was waiting for someone to bring that argument in to play and I don't think it valid. You need an element of common sense in this one. British counties voting for a British government on the matter of British policy making, makes more sense than EU countries voting for an EU parliament for British policy making. All policies should be made in the British Parliament, and that's my point, matter of principle more than anything

I was waiting for someone to bring that argument in to play and I don't think it valid. You need an element of common sense in this one. British counties voting for a British government on the matter of British policy making, makes more sense than EU countries voting for an EU parliament for British policy making. All policies should be made in the British Parliament, and that's my point, matter of principle more than anything

You say it makes more sense. I say it doesn't.

What now?

Your logic is flawed by the way: it should read, "EU countries voting for an EU parliament for EU policy making". They are voting on EU policy, not specifically British. They do not one day decide, ok folks, today we will vote on British policy only.

How about counties that don't like what is going on in government? You Leave campaigners have told me the argument that Britain only has 13% share in the EU parliament and as such Britain cannot veto and must accept the majority. Well, any single county can't veto whatever the British parliament decides either...

EU policy is effectively UK policy so no my point is valid. The EU votes on policy that becomes UK policy eventually, that is a fact you can't disregard

And comparing British counties in Britain is stupid to comparing it with whole different nations. You are applying local wide concepts on a nation/continental wide basis which firstly is childish and secondly not accurate. Things don't stay the same as you scale up the political ladder my friend

1. Wrong, policy has been both proposed by the council and commission which has proceeded to debate and nonetheless I said further down my post that the commission PRIMARILY does this so that was my implication for that point

2. What are you stating here? Yes there is a decision making process where we can be forced to impose the result even if we vote against as a country, that's the point I made. The rest of what you said is unnecessary to my post as I never mentioned foreign policy and so on. It would be stupid to suggest the EU serves at that level...yet

3. I know Junker is voted in by the council of which we and Hungary voted against. Firstly you can argue if that process if democratic as effectively we are given a head of state we the electorate had no choice in picking. Secondly, thank you for ignoring the various back room deals and corrupt activities that saw him win, in no way was it an open and fair process. Thirdly, nice attempted at trying to convince yourself that his cabinet is elected democratically. There is no system off voting and Junker had the final say, not even you can wriggle out of that one. If Junker wants a German representative in the economic ministerial position he gets it regardless. To suggest an interviewing process is democratic is desperate to say the least.

But you saying the EP only gets to consult many matters in some respect and not have the final say is making the whole "elected parliament" powerless. The parliament is the closest to democracy (and even then it is not) yet you are saying there are policies it can only give advice on but not overrule or pass? That seals the deal for me

What about Scotland, Omen96?

Why is it stupid?

The whole of US is bigger than the EU. So what is decided in Washington has a much farther reach than what is decided in Brussels.

Why is it stupid? Because you are too narrow-minded, too nationalistic to look outside the box?

If anything is stupid, is not seeing this.

Scotland should have independence

anyone (including of course Council and EP) can propose policies : but the Commission has the monopoly of legislative initiative. In other words, only the Commission can make proposals for directives and regulations (the main EU legislative acts, which are the practical embodiment of policies). Of course, the Commission will draft proposals which stand a chance of being adopted (even if only in some amended form) by the legislative power (i.e. Council and EP) ...

There are many decisions which are taken by unanimity in Council. Not only in foreign affairs and security matters (where the EU has certain competencies, in any case). Check e.g. fiscal policy, some areas of justice and home affairs, social affairs etc check http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/council-eu/voting-system/unanimity/ for the areas where unanimity in Council is necessary

totally irrelevant. The Junker Commission (like any national executive) was approved by both arms of the legislative (Council and Parliament). This is exactly how most of our constitutional systems work, and nowhere is it written in our constitutions that Ministers are directly elected by the electorate.
the EP is far from powerless. It has equal say with the Council on most matters : the main exception being foreign and security policy . It gets however to approve external agreements, if they modify legislative acts, if they have important budgetary implications, or if they set up specific institutional structures. In many ways, the EP has more power than National Parliaments, since in it there is no pre-constituted majority which will rubber-stamp what the Executive (Government) proposes. It is more similar to the US House of Representatives , in this respect

In a nutshell : it is true that the EU constitutional structure is inevitably, in many ways, "one step more removed" from the electorate (as many federal systems are). All of its organs, however, are (either directly or indirectly) responsible towards the electorate

In particular, the Commission is directly responsible towards the EP and can be removed by it (as happened years ago to the Santer Commission)

The main difference with our national constitutional systems is that unanimity in Council is required for some decisions (and this, of course, means that in some areas anyone of the 28 States has, in practice, veto power - a recipe for inefficiency and blackmail)

also, the fact that the executive (Commission) has the monopoly of legislative initiative : however, this is largely irrelevant. In most of our systems, acts are anyway adopted on the basis of a proposal made by the executive, even if such a monopoly of initiative does not exist

In my view, the main "democratic deficit" depends from the fact that a European "public opinion" does not yet exist, and that information on EU matters is still very summary (as, e.g. your post demonstrates)

best

Are you sure, I think 500 million people is more than 320 million? Or maybe I was taught maths wrong.

At least you're consistent, I guess.

I still think brainhuman has a point, though. If you try to boil it down to a group only having a fraction of votes, then by logic any type of collective organisation is wrong, as we surrender some liberty for the common good. All you have done is arbitrarily declare a barrier at which beyond it is unacceptable, but beneath it is acceptable.

Good post but you said it further down the line (or implied it), the final conclusion we can come to is, the question is a matter of personal opinion, whether you want a federal system or not? I personally have always opposed political unions on this scale. In terms the UK it's more blurred between our nations but the EU is just a political union one step too far in my eyes. I don't want a federal Europe so naturally I oppose the governmental procedures.

Fair enough.

Honestly.

But what is not cool is making up (often wrong, or misleading) arguments.

Good post but you said it further down the line (or implied it), the final conclusion we can come to is, the question is a matter of personal opinion, whether you want a federal system or not? I personally have always opposed political unions on this scale. In terms the UK it's more blurred between our nations but the EU is just a political union one step too far in my eyes. I don't want a federal Europe so naturally I oppose the governmental procedures.

I don't agree. The EU has taken strides in the past few years to accommodate regionalist concerns, such as the green/red card scheme and boosting the Committee of the Regions and European Public Initiatives.

I support devolution too, but I also recognise in some fields it makes sense to co-ordinate with other countries. Energy security is one I think it is essential to integrate in order to combat Russian aggression, for example.

This is the basis at which we should be debating.

We should all agree that power on what ever level is surrendered and the procedures are less democratic (how much is debatable). The real question is do we support the process and what comes with it or not. I personally don't support political unions on this scale. For nations of such differing economic policy, economic dependency, social policy (scary we are likely to accept Turkey with their barbaric record), demographic, political association and so on. I believe there are winners and losers in this scenario. I see the UK as a loser. It's impossible to have EU wide policies and standards that benefit ALL members considering we are very different to one another.

On the topic of the U.K. the factors I listed don't come into play as much considering the history and cultures, not to mention economic dependencies. But it would be hypocritical of me to not apply my opinion on political unions to this too. I am a supporter of devolution and not centralisation. The U.K. Is actually the former while the EU for decades has been moving in the latter

We can negotiate money but never our values. Wecannot impose our standards on the rest of the world. Equally, others cannotimpose their standards on us.
"Our freedoms, including freedom ofexpression, will not be part of political bargaining with any partner. This message must also be heard by President Erdogan.

I don't believe I falsified anything but I will be more than happy to accept BOTH sides exaggerate the reality. The IN camp promote it as a completely democratic body while the OUT camp promote it as a completely undemocratic body. Both are wrong. The question is which one we align with most.

And I'm not attacking you, but to suggest I'm a nationalist over the democratic question makes no sense. Democracy is about principle more than anything. I believe in democracy not out British supremacy but the principle I wholeheartedly believe in that everything should be passed through fairly and legally.

You see, this is what I mean.

We will not accept Turkey. Tusk said this in a public statement only last week. There is absolutely no intention of accepting Turkey.

What is going on though, is that we are bribing Turkey to keep the immigrants away from us.

The fact that us sucking up to them is reason enough for people to say we are likely to accept Turkey shows just how much misinformation is actually spread.