EU is unelected/democratic? WRONG - Myth buster
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Erzan
The UK parliament is weak, why? because the UK executive has an inbuilt majority and can bully it's way into passing a law.
No it doesn't.
The only way there's a majority in a UK parliament is if it has been elected that way by the public.
If the UK executive try to pass a law through that doesn't have support of a majority of MPs then it will be rejected.
Original post by MagicNMedicine
No it doesn't.
The only way there's a majority in a UK parliament is if it has been elected that way by the public.
If the UK executive try to pass a law through that doesn't have support of a majority of MPs then it will be rejected.
The only way there's a majority in a UK parliament is if it has been elected that way by the public.
If the UK executive try to pass a law through that doesn't have support of a majority of MPs then it will be rejected.
Original post by Reformed2010
I agree with a considerable amount of what you're saying, but the outcome of the European Parliament elections are not remotely proportional.
An EU constituency like Scotland with a population of five million gets six seats, while another - like Denmark - gets 15. Meanwhile Malta, with a population of around 400,000 gets five too. A proportional system cannot exist with such underlying unfairness - these are modern day rotten boroughs.
That is subjective. Fundamental Human Rights aren't. They're universal.
There are human rights but they cannot be justified except in a tradition, such as the Western Post-Christian tradition. Certainly Courts need to be fair for good governance but how can you say that someone has a "right" to practice any religion at all or indulge in any possible sexual proclivity. The apparently "fundamental" rights carry a huge number of hidden assumptions about reasonableness, sanity etc that are cultural, in fact Western.
There are human rights but they cannot be justified except in a tradition, such as the Western Post-Christian tradition. Certainly Courts need to be fair for good governance but how can you say that someone has a "right" to practice any religion at all or indulge in any possible sexual proclivity. The apparently "fundamental" rights carry a huge number of hidden assumptions about reasonableness, sanity etc that are cultural, in fact Western.
Original post by Reformed2010
Sick and tired of having to hear this same myth being trotted out by the Leave campaign.
Imagine a Britain where the PM minister has to wait on First Minister of Northern Ireland, Wales, Scotland and Mayor of London to pick his or her Cabinet Ministers. Imagine a Britain where that Cabinet had to then be approved or rejected by Parliament in a vote. Where the lower house (Commons) was proportionally elected so no votes were wasted. Where the upper house (Lords) was elected by its citizens. Where the head of state was not selected by the accident of birth but by elected by its citizens. Where amending the British constitution could be vetoed simply by the Welsh First Minister. Or where fundamental rights and liberties were enshrined in law and could not be ignored by a government. Imagine if the Welsh, Northern Ireland, Scottish and First Ministers could club together and stop the invasion of the Iraq War or increase funding for the NHS? Oh wait, sorry that's not Britain, that's how the European Union works.
This idea that the EU is undemocratic and/or unelected has to stop. Laws are approved, amended or rejected by the directly elected MEP's using proportional representation in the EU Parliament and elected government Ministers in the EU Council from the 28 member states. The Commission President is now elected in the similar method of the UK Prime Minister, he or she campaigns during the European election and is the leader of the largest party after the Parliamentary election. The other 27 Commissioners are appointed by the 27 elected governments and the entire Commission is approved or rejected by the directly elected Parliament. This would be like the governments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland each proposing a Cabinet Minister to the UK Prime Minister and he or she has to wait for UK parliamentary approval for their Cabinet.
EU treaties are ratified only with the consent of every 28 national parliament and government approval. This would be like the UK government needing the approval of the UK 4 devolved administrations (London, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland) to amend the UK constitution. In addition, European protesters for example have exercised their democratic right to put pressure on elected officials, as is the case with TTIP and the French government is threatening to veto the agreement in the EU Council. That is a representative of just 12% of the EU population able to defy the will of the other representatives of 82%. That would be like the London Assembly led by the Mayor of London, representing roughly 12% of the UK population having a veto on UK trade deals. Unimaginable (and impossible) in a British context. The UK government thanks to protest is now promising to veto it if the NHS is not protected. Evidence suggesting proportionally citizens can influence the decision of the EU better than in the UK.
On issues like how Greece was handled, which I sense is where many especially on the left like to accuse the EU of lacking democracy becomes a matter of debate on the type of democracy you believe is legitimate. If you support a more supranational, or Federal type model is it any less undemocratic for the other 27 elected governments in the EU Council to enforce their will on the elected Greek government. Than it is for the US federal government to enforce its will and stop North Carolina anti LGBT laws? You could argue the EU parliament should have a role in Monetary and Fiscal policy, which would strengthen the democratic legitimacy of the EU's decision on Greece. But you'll still have an elected majority imposing it's will on a minority.
The trouble is the European People's Party (EPP) who are Conservative and pro-austerity are the largest party in the EU parliament, The Commission President is a member of the EPP and the EU Council has a majority of EPP Presidents and Prime Ministers. We need to stop arguing that the EU is undemocratic and unelected, which is incorrect and puts people off from voting in the European elections. We need to educate all European (especially British) people on how their vote in the European election can kick out the EPP led Parliament and Commission. That they by voting in left or centre governments in their national elections can kick out the EPP led EU Council.
The tools to change the EU with two votes, supranational (European) and national (British), and protesting is there. It's time our education system, national politicians and media gave the knowledge to the citizens on how to use them. The EU is unelected/democratic is a myth, it's the UK that has the problems.
Imagine a Britain where the PM minister has to wait on First Minister of Northern Ireland, Wales, Scotland and Mayor of London to pick his or her Cabinet Ministers. Imagine a Britain where that Cabinet had to then be approved or rejected by Parliament in a vote. Where the lower house (Commons) was proportionally elected so no votes were wasted. Where the upper house (Lords) was elected by its citizens. Where the head of state was not selected by the accident of birth but by elected by its citizens. Where amending the British constitution could be vetoed simply by the Welsh First Minister. Or where fundamental rights and liberties were enshrined in law and could not be ignored by a government. Imagine if the Welsh, Northern Ireland, Scottish and First Ministers could club together and stop the invasion of the Iraq War or increase funding for the NHS? Oh wait, sorry that's not Britain, that's how the European Union works.
This idea that the EU is undemocratic and/or unelected has to stop. Laws are approved, amended or rejected by the directly elected MEP's using proportional representation in the EU Parliament and elected government Ministers in the EU Council from the 28 member states. The Commission President is now elected in the similar method of the UK Prime Minister, he or she campaigns during the European election and is the leader of the largest party after the Parliamentary election. The other 27 Commissioners are appointed by the 27 elected governments and the entire Commission is approved or rejected by the directly elected Parliament. This would be like the governments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland each proposing a Cabinet Minister to the UK Prime Minister and he or she has to wait for UK parliamentary approval for their Cabinet.
EU treaties are ratified only with the consent of every 28 national parliament and government approval. This would be like the UK government needing the approval of the UK 4 devolved administrations (London, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland) to amend the UK constitution. In addition, European protesters for example have exercised their democratic right to put pressure on elected officials, as is the case with TTIP and the French government is threatening to veto the agreement in the EU Council. That is a representative of just 12% of the EU population able to defy the will of the other representatives of 82%. That would be like the London Assembly led by the Mayor of London, representing roughly 12% of the UK population having a veto on UK trade deals. Unimaginable (and impossible) in a British context. The UK government thanks to protest is now promising to veto it if the NHS is not protected. Evidence suggesting proportionally citizens can influence the decision of the EU better than in the UK.
On issues like how Greece was handled, which I sense is where many especially on the left like to accuse the EU of lacking democracy becomes a matter of debate on the type of democracy you believe is legitimate. If you support a more supranational, or Federal type model is it any less undemocratic for the other 27 elected governments in the EU Council to enforce their will on the elected Greek government. Than it is for the US federal government to enforce its will and stop North Carolina anti LGBT laws? You could argue the EU parliament should have a role in Monetary and Fiscal policy, which would strengthen the democratic legitimacy of the EU's decision on Greece. But you'll still have an elected majority imposing it's will on a minority.
The trouble is the European People's Party (EPP) who are Conservative and pro-austerity are the largest party in the EU parliament, The Commission President is a member of the EPP and the EU Council has a majority of EPP Presidents and Prime Ministers. We need to stop arguing that the EU is undemocratic and unelected, which is incorrect and puts people off from voting in the European elections. We need to educate all European (especially British) people on how their vote in the European election can kick out the EPP led Parliament and Commission. That they by voting in left or centre governments in their national elections can kick out the EPP led EU Council.
The tools to change the EU with two votes, supranational (European) and national (British), and protesting is there. It's time our education system, national politicians and media gave the knowledge to the citizens on how to use them. The EU is unelected/democratic is a myth, it's the UK that has the problems.
Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland SHOULD be able to prevent the UK from invading though.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by That Bearded Man
Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland SHOULD be able to prevent the UK from invading though.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by L i b
I agree with a considerable amount of what you're saying, but the outcome of the European Parliament elections are not remotely proportional.
An EU constituency like Scotland with a population of five million gets six seats, while another - like Denmark - gets 15. Meanwhile Malta, with a population of around 400,000 gets five too. A proportional system cannot exist with such underlying unfairness - these are modern day rotten boroughs.
An EU constituency like Scotland with a population of five million gets six seats, while another - like Denmark - gets 15. Meanwhile Malta, with a population of around 400,000 gets five too. A proportional system cannot exist with such underlying unfairness - these are modern day rotten boroughs.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Reformed2010
Sick and tired of having to hear this same myth being trotted out by the Leave campaign.
Imagine a Britain where the PM minister has to wait on First Minister of Northern Ireland, Wales, Scotland and Mayor of London to pick his or her Cabinet Ministers. Imagine a Britain where that Cabinet had to then be approved or rejected by Parliament in a vote. Where the lower house (Commons) was proportionally elected so no votes were wasted. Where the upper house (Lords) was elected by its citizens. Where the head of state was not selected by the accident of birth but by elected by its citizens. Where amending the British constitution could be vetoed simply by the Welsh First Minister. Or where fundamental rights and liberties were enshrined in law and could not be ignored by a government. Imagine if the Welsh, Northern Ireland, Scottish and First Ministers could club together and stop the invasion of the Iraq War or increase funding for the NHS? Oh wait, sorry that's not Britain, that's how the European Union works.
This idea that the EU is undemocratic and/or unelected has to stop. Laws are approved, amended or rejected by the directly elected MEP's using proportional representation in the EU Parliament and elected government Ministers in the EU Council from the 28 member states. The Commission President is now elected in the similar method of the UK Prime Minister, he or she campaigns during the European election and is the leader of the largest party after the Parliamentary election. The other 27 Commissioners are appointed by the 27 elected governments and the entire Commission is approved or rejected by the directly elected Parliament. This would be like the governments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland each proposing a Cabinet Minister to the UK Prime Minister and he or she has to wait for UK parliamentary approval for their Cabinet.
EU treaties are ratified only with the consent of every 28 national parliament and government approval. This would be like the UK government needing the approval of the UK 4 devolved administrations (London, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland) to amend the UK constitution. In addition, European protesters for example have exercised their democratic right to put pressure on elected officials, as is the case with TTIP and the French government is threatening to veto the agreement in the EU Council. That is a representative of just 12% of the EU population able to defy the will of the other representatives of 82%. That would be like the London Assembly led by the Mayor of London, representing roughly 12% of the UK population having a veto on UK trade deals. Unimaginable (and impossible) in a British context. The UK government thanks to protest is now promising to veto it if the NHS is not protected. Evidence suggesting proportionally citizens can influence the decision of the EU better than in the UK.
On issues like how Greece was handled, which I sense is where many especially on the left like to accuse the EU of lacking democracy becomes a matter of debate on the type of democracy you believe is legitimate. If you support a more supranational, or Federal type model is it any less undemocratic for the other 27 elected governments in the EU Council to enforce their will on the elected Greek government. Than it is for the US federal government to enforce its will and stop North Carolina anti LGBT laws? You could argue the EU parliament should have a role in Monetary and Fiscal policy, which would strengthen the democratic legitimacy of the EU's decision on Greece. But you'll still have an elected majority imposing it's will on a minority.
The trouble is the European People's Party (EPP) who are Conservative and pro-austerity are the largest party in the EU parliament, The Commission President is a member of the EPP and the EU Council has a majority of EPP Presidents and Prime Ministers. We need to stop arguing that the EU is undemocratic and unelected, which is incorrect and puts people off from voting in the European elections. We need to educate all European (especially British) people on how their vote in the European election can kick out the EPP led Parliament and Commission. That they by voting in left or centre governments in their national elections can kick out the EPP led EU Council.
The tools to change the EU with two votes, supranational (European) and national (British), and protesting is there. It's time our education system, national politicians and media gave the knowledge to the citizens on how to use them. The EU is unelected/democratic is a myth, it's the UK that has the problems.
Imagine a Britain where the PM minister has to wait on First Minister of Northern Ireland, Wales, Scotland and Mayor of London to pick his or her Cabinet Ministers. Imagine a Britain where that Cabinet had to then be approved or rejected by Parliament in a vote. Where the lower house (Commons) was proportionally elected so no votes were wasted. Where the upper house (Lords) was elected by its citizens. Where the head of state was not selected by the accident of birth but by elected by its citizens. Where amending the British constitution could be vetoed simply by the Welsh First Minister. Or where fundamental rights and liberties were enshrined in law and could not be ignored by a government. Imagine if the Welsh, Northern Ireland, Scottish and First Ministers could club together and stop the invasion of the Iraq War or increase funding for the NHS? Oh wait, sorry that's not Britain, that's how the European Union works.
This idea that the EU is undemocratic and/or unelected has to stop. Laws are approved, amended or rejected by the directly elected MEP's using proportional representation in the EU Parliament and elected government Ministers in the EU Council from the 28 member states. The Commission President is now elected in the similar method of the UK Prime Minister, he or she campaigns during the European election and is the leader of the largest party after the Parliamentary election. The other 27 Commissioners are appointed by the 27 elected governments and the entire Commission is approved or rejected by the directly elected Parliament. This would be like the governments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland each proposing a Cabinet Minister to the UK Prime Minister and he or she has to wait for UK parliamentary approval for their Cabinet.
EU treaties are ratified only with the consent of every 28 national parliament and government approval. This would be like the UK government needing the approval of the UK 4 devolved administrations (London, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland) to amend the UK constitution. In addition, European protesters for example have exercised their democratic right to put pressure on elected officials, as is the case with TTIP and the French government is threatening to veto the agreement in the EU Council. That is a representative of just 12% of the EU population able to defy the will of the other representatives of 82%. That would be like the London Assembly led by the Mayor of London, representing roughly 12% of the UK population having a veto on UK trade deals. Unimaginable (and impossible) in a British context. The UK government thanks to protest is now promising to veto it if the NHS is not protected. Evidence suggesting proportionally citizens can influence the decision of the EU better than in the UK.
On issues like how Greece was handled, which I sense is where many especially on the left like to accuse the EU of lacking democracy becomes a matter of debate on the type of democracy you believe is legitimate. If you support a more supranational, or Federal type model is it any less undemocratic for the other 27 elected governments in the EU Council to enforce their will on the elected Greek government. Than it is for the US federal government to enforce its will and stop North Carolina anti LGBT laws? You could argue the EU parliament should have a role in Monetary and Fiscal policy, which would strengthen the democratic legitimacy of the EU's decision on Greece. But you'll still have an elected majority imposing it's will on a minority.
The trouble is the European People's Party (EPP) who are Conservative and pro-austerity are the largest party in the EU parliament, The Commission President is a member of the EPP and the EU Council has a majority of EPP Presidents and Prime Ministers. We need to stop arguing that the EU is undemocratic and unelected, which is incorrect and puts people off from voting in the European elections. We need to educate all European (especially British) people on how their vote in the European election can kick out the EPP led Parliament and Commission. That they by voting in left or centre governments in their national elections can kick out the EPP led EU Council.
The tools to change the EU with two votes, supranational (European) and national (British), and protesting is there. It's time our education system, national politicians and media gave the knowledge to the citizens on how to use them. The EU is unelected/democratic is a myth, it's the UK that has the problems.
Absolutely spot on.
Original post by BaronK
I don't think he's a chairman. His title is quite clearly President of the European Council. Still, did you vote for Tusk? Guess both have an unelected head then.
I implore you to do research, the UK parliament isn't weak. Clearly this is why avoided the part about government defeats.
I implore you to do research, the UK parliament isn't weak. Clearly this is why avoided the part about government defeats.
Hey I say this with love, you need to read up on a few political terms and how the European Union is designed.
Original post by Funkinwolf
Absolutely spot on.
Hey I say this with love, you need to read up on a few political terms and how the European Union is designed.
Hey I say this with love, you need to read up on a few political terms and how the European Union is designed.
No I don't.
Original post by MagicNMedicine
No it doesn't.
The only way there's a majority in a UK parliament is if it has been elected that way by the public.
If the UK executive try to pass a law through that doesn't have support of a majority of MPs then it will be rejected.
The only way there's a majority in a UK parliament is if it has been elected that way by the public.
If the UK executive try to pass a law through that doesn't have support of a majority of MPs then it will be rejected.
For these right wing Tory MPS to bang on about democracy is a bit rich for they agree with the Monarchy for one which is unelected and the British public have never been asked if they want an heriditory head of state, they agree with the House of Lords which again is unelected, they agree with whips which basically forced MPs to vote the way their party leadership dictates to them and they also agree with the current voting system where only 24% of the electorate voted Conservative and we end up with a Conservative Government. The phrase throwing stones in a green house springs to mind.
Look at some of the out supporters, Michael Gove for instance a man who thinks the British Empire was a great thing, enslaving millions at home and abroad to make a few wealthy within the British Establishment, are these the plans for a post EU Britain?
Look at some of the out supporters, Michael Gove for instance a man who thinks the British Empire was a great thing, enslaving millions at home and abroad to make a few wealthy within the British Establishment, are these the plans for a post EU Britain?
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by BaronK
No I don't.
Original post by Erzan
Why do you have to be so immature?
Why's it immature to disagree with you?
Original post by Bornblue
While I accept the EU is to an extent undemocratic , what I find hard to accept is the opportunism of many in the Brexit camp.
Many of them oppose making the UK more democratic via a representative and proportional voting system, yet complain about the EU being undemocratic.
The Conservatives got about one seat for every 25,000 votes or so at the last election. The Greens got one seat for every million votes. UKIP got one seat for every four million votes.
So to complain about the EU being undemocratic while shrugging your shoulders at our own system is opportunistic at best.
Many of them oppose making the UK more democratic via a representative and proportional voting system, yet complain about the EU being undemocratic.
The Conservatives got about one seat for every 25,000 votes or so at the last election. The Greens got one seat for every million votes. UKIP got one seat for every four million votes.
So to complain about the EU being undemocratic while shrugging your shoulders at our own system is opportunistic at best.
Cleggers put out a referendum on changing the voting system not that long ago, the UK as a whole voted to keep FPTP.
So unless i'm mistaken, that's that argument torpedoed. :|
Original post by Pegasus2
Cleggers put out a referendum on changing the voting system not that long ago, the UK as a whole voted to keep FPTP.
So unless i'm mistaken, that's that argument torpedoed. :|
So unless i'm mistaken, that's that argument torpedoed. :|
To AV which is not a Proportional voting system. PR is.
The referendum was not a choice between a proportional and unproportional system, it was a choice between two unproportional systems.
And then you add in the fact that the Tories are currently in the process of gerrymandering the boundaries further in their favour.
Original post by Reformed2010
Where the upper house (Lords) was elected by its citizens.
I'm assuming this is supposed to be an analogy for the Commission?
The Commission is wholly unelected by the citizens of Europe.
The House of Lords does not have legislative initiative, but the EU Commission does.
The Queen does not have legislative initiative, but the EU Commission does.
The House of Commons, elected, has legislative initiative, but the EU Parliament, elected, does not.
This is not democratic.
EU is inherently undemocratic.
You can only elect MEPs. They have NO power whatsoever. The EU Parliament is a rubber stamp parliament that cannot propose new legislation or repeal existing legislation. All the big decisions are made by the European Council and the European Courts which are unelected bodies.
You can only elect MEPs. They have NO power whatsoever. The EU Parliament is a rubber stamp parliament that cannot propose new legislation or repeal existing legislation. All the big decisions are made by the European Council and the European Courts which are unelected bodies.
1) The European Commission has the sole power to propose legislation. In the House of Commons, any MP can table a motion and have it voted on. Can MEPs do the same? No. They can only amend, reject or approve laws already proposed by the commission. Can MEPs repeal old laws without the consent of the commission? Fat chance.
2) The President of the Commission is recommended as the candidate by the Council of Ministers by a qualified majority and is voted on by the European Parliament. Given however that in 2014 there was only one candidate on the ballot, Jean Claude Juncker, and no other competitor, I fail to see how you think that's exactly a democratic exercise. Jean Claude Juncker's Presidency wasn't even approved by all EU member state governments (Britain voted against). On top of that, the EU Commission can also pass directives. Unlike European law, directives go to national governments. National parliaments or the European Parliament has no say on whether or not to approve or reject them. Directives must be implemented whether the public like it or not. Again, through which democratic result did the British public give approval for Commissioners to pass directives which MPs in the House of Commons can do nothing about?
3) EU Treaties are ratified with member state government approval, sure, but given some of their constitutional implications, you would expect them all to go by public referendums. How many states for example, had referendums on the Treaty of Lisbon? Not the UK. Ireland did, and rejected it the first time round, but the faceless bureaucrats running the EU did not accept the result and Ireland soon had to have a second referendum. How often is it that you get second referendums so soon after the first? As far as I was aware, Ireland was never a direct democracy like Switzerland where voters are regularly consulted on a range of issues at the ballot box all the time, but even in that system if something is rejected people aren't made to vote on it again. Not to mention that Dutch and French referendums rejected the EU Constitution in 2004, but the EU made some cosmetic changes and re-branded it as the Treaty of Lisbon.
4) Now your argument seems to be falling apart. You say that the EU is democratic, but then say that 12%, a very tiny minority, of a population can veto something that 82% are seemingly in favour of. Surely the whole point of democracy is to go by the agenda of the plurality (if you're going by first past the post) or in this case, the overwhelming majority. If there is something which the overwhelming majority of a population wants, but something which a minority can veto, then is that system democratic?
5) Consider this. In the British parliament you have 650 MPs representing 65 million or so people. In the European Parliament there are 751 MEPs representing 500 million people.
For all the faults of British democracy, when put to the test, it is far more democratic than the EU as a whole. For a democracy to function you cannot consider solely the constitutional and technical arrangements, you must also consider how much public scrutiny there is. In the UK there is regular debate about government policy and compared to EU law and directives, a lot of transparency. The arguments about the monarchy is a separate one to be had, but consider this, unlike the head of state of the UK, the EU's effective (not official) head of state, Mr Juncker, has a great deal of power. The Queen in practice does not.
2) The President of the Commission is recommended as the candidate by the Council of Ministers by a qualified majority and is voted on by the European Parliament. Given however that in 2014 there was only one candidate on the ballot, Jean Claude Juncker, and no other competitor, I fail to see how you think that's exactly a democratic exercise. Jean Claude Juncker's Presidency wasn't even approved by all EU member state governments (Britain voted against). On top of that, the EU Commission can also pass directives. Unlike European law, directives go to national governments. National parliaments or the European Parliament has no say on whether or not to approve or reject them. Directives must be implemented whether the public like it or not. Again, through which democratic result did the British public give approval for Commissioners to pass directives which MPs in the House of Commons can do nothing about?
3) EU Treaties are ratified with member state government approval, sure, but given some of their constitutional implications, you would expect them all to go by public referendums. How many states for example, had referendums on the Treaty of Lisbon? Not the UK. Ireland did, and rejected it the first time round, but the faceless bureaucrats running the EU did not accept the result and Ireland soon had to have a second referendum. How often is it that you get second referendums so soon after the first? As far as I was aware, Ireland was never a direct democracy like Switzerland where voters are regularly consulted on a range of issues at the ballot box all the time, but even in that system if something is rejected people aren't made to vote on it again. Not to mention that Dutch and French referendums rejected the EU Constitution in 2004, but the EU made some cosmetic changes and re-branded it as the Treaty of Lisbon.
4) Now your argument seems to be falling apart. You say that the EU is democratic, but then say that 12%, a very tiny minority, of a population can veto something that 82% are seemingly in favour of. Surely the whole point of democracy is to go by the agenda of the plurality (if you're going by first past the post) or in this case, the overwhelming majority. If there is something which the overwhelming majority of a population wants, but something which a minority can veto, then is that system democratic?
5) Consider this. In the British parliament you have 650 MPs representing 65 million or so people. In the European Parliament there are 751 MEPs representing 500 million people.
For all the faults of British democracy, when put to the test, it is far more democratic than the EU as a whole. For a democracy to function you cannot consider solely the constitutional and technical arrangements, you must also consider how much public scrutiny there is. In the UK there is regular debate about government policy and compared to EU law and directives, a lot of transparency. The arguments about the monarchy is a separate one to be had, but consider this, unlike the head of state of the UK, the EU's effective (not official) head of state, Mr Juncker, has a great deal of power. The Queen in practice does not.
Great post.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Rethinking the nation state - what a Labour Government could do
- Law essay competition feedback?
- Which 2024 election will be most significant for the world?
- Have the Tories stopped being Conservative?
- Who regrets the outcome of Brexit??
- Edexcel A Level Politics Paper 3B: 9PL0 3B - 17 June 2022 [Exam Chat]
- Ancient Greek EPQ help?
- Clearing guide
- Monarchy - for or against?
- Edexcel A Level Politics Paper 3A (9PL0 3A) 16th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
- How do I revise Film Studies?
- Edexcel A Level Politics Paper 2 (9PL0 02) 7th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
- Trump ineligible to run for president in Colorado and Maine in 2024 Election
- what are your thoughts on the royal family?
- OCR GCSE Classical Civilisation - Myth & Religion [17th May 2023] Exam Chat
- Kamala Harris is the Democrat VP pick
- Tai chi society - university of edinburgh
- should universities treat all exam boards the same?
- is it possible to grow at 17
- SFE applications for 2024 (And them not being open while popup says they are)
Latest
Last reply 27 minutes ago
Got my crush's number 2 days ago and no reply yet. What could be the reasons?Posted 31 minutes ago
GB News set to axe 40 jobs after channel posts heavy lossesLast reply 33 minutes ago
Rwanda bill likely to be stalled at least till April after seven defeats in the LordsPosted 39 minutes ago
Sunak rejects offer of youth mobility scheme between EU and UKLast reply 1 hour ago
Bank Of england degree apprenticeship 2024Last reply 1 hour ago
Feeling inferior compared to syrians as a half moroccan/half whiteLast reply 1 hour ago
Edexcel A Level Business Paper 1 (9BS0 01) - 14th May 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 1 hour ago
LSE International Social and Public Policy and Economics (LLK1) 2024 ThreadLast reply 1 hour ago
Official London School of Economics and Political Science 2024 Applicant ThreadLast reply 1 hour ago
Atkins Degree Apprenticeship 2024Last reply 1 hour ago
Official University of St Andrews Applicant Thread for 2024Trending
Last reply 18 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 week ago
Rayner denies wrongdoing over council house sale amid police reviewLast reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
2024 UK general election speculation and build-up threadLast reply 2 weeks ago
Trump needs a $464m bond in six days. What if he can't get it?Last reply 3 weeks ago
How did John Major become PM with barely any qualifications?Trending
Last reply 18 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 week ago
Rayner denies wrongdoing over council house sale amid police reviewLast reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
2024 UK general election speculation and build-up threadLast reply 2 weeks ago
Trump needs a $464m bond in six days. What if he can't get it?Last reply 3 weeks ago
How did John Major become PM with barely any qualifications?
