In what way is the EU undemocratic?

This is exactly the way SD is used. I suggest you spend an afternoon on the use of SD and variance. I have already explained the '29 times fairer' figure. The fact that we give such small populations so much more power is a key factor of this disparity. It also does not help that even including the big countries, UK still has the 2nd highest population per MEP figure of 28 states.

I have spent enough time in my degree on that

Does it make you mad they get so much more power relative to the UK?

in my degree

I really should not have to lecture you on simple statistics. If you do not like statistics feel free to rely on assumptions and false accusations such as 'you are lying'.

I never said you are lying about the statistics.

I said you are lying about your motives.

It's like arguing with a child.

People keep saying this, but I really don't understand why. Nobody seems to know how the EU is undemocratic, they just know that it is. They don't even seem to have any idea how the EU works.

Could someone please explain?

That's right, you only said 'Stop lying you little whiner.'.

Quote me where I lied about my motives.

You have just admitted that if the EU became 29 times more fair in your specific valuation of the meaning of fair you would consider it democratic. Note not 28.9 times, but 29 times. Because the UK is so democratic.

Yet you have repeatedly ignored the point that votes are actually lost, other than giving some lame attempt at justifying why it could be more representative (which totally fails btw).

Anyway, I don't need to talk to a brick wall. I actually hope you guys Leave, it would be hilarious to see your dreams crumble and nothing of what you think will be made better will come true, other than possibly curbing immigration.

I don't think you actually made an argument in that whole post

If you actually are doing a degree I feel sorry for whichever university has to admit it's responsible for you

They even gave me a merit in the degree award. Shocker, huh?

Very impressive, I'm sure your Women's Studies degree will come in handy 😂

You have just admitted that if the EU became 29 times more fair in your specific valuation of the meaning of fair you would consider it democratic. Note not 28.9 times, but 29 times. Because the UK is so democratic.

Yet you have repeatedly ignored the point that votes are actually lost, other than giving some lame attempt at justifying why it could be more representative (which totally fails btw).

Anyway, I don't need to talk to a brick wall. I actually hope you guys Leave, it would be hilarious to see your dreams crumble and nothing of what you think will be made better will come true, other than possibly curbing immigration.

No votes are 'lost', I don't think you understand this basic concept of democracy. The parliamentary system works because there is a losing candidate and a winning candidate. In essence the losing vote is just as important as the winning vote as they challenge the candidate who will eventually win to adjust his policies to represent more people in order to obtain his winning position. One could also say the same to the EU, if 35% of MEPs votes against a motion, and 65% voted for the motion, then by your logic the 35% are wasted votes. Your claim that votes are 'lost' is against the fundamental logic of democracy, unless we live in a world of 100% agreement all the time. In the real world there is no democratic system for absolute agreement, because the truth is that we never absolutely agree, otherwise it would not be a democracy.

To be very honest, with the utmost respect I don't truly believe you actually think that votes are 'lost', at least not subconsciously. I think you are just throwing around undeveloped assumption to try to get the debate off course.

What happens in Parliament is totally different situation. This is about representation of the populace. Those 35% are still represented.

In first past the post, every single person that voted for a loser is not represented in Parliament.

Why are you denying this? Why in fact, are you coming up with some sort bs that I don't even believe in that? You called me up for having a certain, unfriendly tone. Look at you, you are dismissive, you are patronizing.

Then if you don't use FPTP, considering my previous example of David Cameron vs Jeremy Corbyn of 55% to 45%, 45% would not be represented and the 45% would not even hold a single constituency. Are you saying that this is better?

No. But your example makes no sense.

People keep saying this, but I really don't understand why. Nobody seems to know how the EU is undemocratic, they just know that it is. They don't even seem to have any idea how the EU works.

Could someone please explain?

The Commission clearly has more power than the UK civil service. I'm not sure it has more power than some EU civil services e.g. the French. I'm not sure the Commission can be regarded as the government since the creation of Tusk's office.


However, Redmond's point is:-



and if that is the test then clearly the UK civil service fails it.