Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

How do Remain voters try to justify the undemocratic nature of the EU? Watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    I voted for a Parliament which sustains a government which appointed said Commissioner, and which attends the Council which holds that Commission to account and can block laws. I also elected an MEP who holds that Commissioner to account in Brussels.


    Our Commissioner has literally been defeated 100% of the time since the last general election. He isn't holding anyone to account or blocking any laws. All of our MEPs are Euroskeptic and we're still having EU law enforced on us. We've elected an entire set of MEPs saying "We do not wish to be affected by EU law," and we're still affected.

    (Original post by gladders)
    So what? I'm represented by a Government that got 38% of the vote. I'm elected by a Government that got a minority of seats in Scotland. I'm represented by a Government that didn't win in my constituency.

    Your argument can only logically end in representative government being impractical in all fields.
    M O V I N G T H E G O A L P O S T S
    Besides, there's an increasing push for direct democracy and proportional representation in the UK. Any democratic progress we make in the UK is pointless as long as we're stuck in the yoke of the EU.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EuanF)
    Our Commissioner has literally been defeated 100% of the time since the last general election. He isn't holding anyone to account or blocking any laws. All of our MEPs are Euroskeptic and we're still having EU law enforced on us. We've elected an entire set of MEPs saying "We do not wish to be affected by EU law," and we're still affected.
    But that doesn't tell us the whole story. What votes were they? How important? Was it straight bananas, or secret plot number twelve towards a superstate? Were we on the winning side on issues we actually cared about?

    In fact, on several occasions a minister has voted ‘No’ to a measure supported by a majority of British MEPs , including those from the minister’s own party.

    And on some occasions the UK government might oppose an EU law which is supported by the administrations in Edinburgh, Cardiff or Belfast.

    M O V I N G T H E G O A L P O S T S
    How in the name of Jimmy Smits is this moving the goalposts? We're criticising the EU's democratic credentials. We need a measure to test that criticism. What do we have? The UK system.

    Besides, there's an increasing push for direct democracy and proportional representation in the UK. Any democratic progress we make in the UK is pointless as long as we're stuck in the yoke of the EU.
    And it still boils down to being a complete wash anyway. Any criticism of the EU's democratic credentials can be thrown at the UK, even if we had direct democracy and PR.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    trimmed, stop running 50 million lines of argument at once, just focus on one until it's dealt with
    "In sum, it is correct that UK government ministers have sometimes been outvoted over EU laws...In terms of the total volume of laws passed, the proportion of times the UK government has been on the “losing side” is small at about 2% since 1999. In recent years the UK has been losing a lot more votes, and now loses a higher proportion of votes than other members."

    Your source agrees with the facts stated, and agrees with the figures given for 100% defeat rate when we disagree with a law.

    https://gallery.mailchimp.com/1026e6...nce.pdf#page=5

    And correct, I elect my MP who is responsible for my constituency and for their role in Parliament.
    In the UK, we have 1 MP per around 92000 people.
    In the EU, we have 1 MEP per around 878082 people.
    It's clear how much more personal and representative our MP system is than our MEP system.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    trim
    It does not matter how important the votes were, simply that we opposed them. It was directly against our will that these measures would be placed on us, and they were placed on us anyway. To quote Juncker - “If it's a Yes, we will say 'on we go', and if it's a No we will say 'we continue’,”

    There's no point comparing the EU to the UK democracy when we already know the definiton of a perfect democracy and from that we can see how strongly the EU undermines it. To pull your N.K argument out, it's perfectly democratic because they at least get to cast a vote for their only candidate - we don't even get that luxury
    Online

    13
    ReputationRep:
    EuanF With Switzerland, its geography, size and history make it a particularly unique phenomenon- which should it be copied by all member states would destroy it. In addition


    '.It's all very democratic, of course, a country run by anonymous politicians that lets the technocrats steer its ferry boats, a nation of different tongues and communities that graciously allows outsiders in to sweep its roads and bake its pizzas, but gives them only the most reduced of rights. You want change and constant referendums? Learn here that referendums mean no change. It's a placid, complacent place. Switzerland has eternal peace and convenient neutrality. Switzerland defines its own national self-interest every day..'


    http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...es-switzerland
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EuanF)
    "In sum, it is correct that UK government ministers have sometimes been outvoted over EU laws...In terms of the total volume of laws passed, the proportion of times the UK government has been on the “losing side” is small at about 2% since 1999. In recent years the UK has been losing a lot more votes, and now loses a higher proportion of votes than other members."

    Your source agrees with the facts stated, and agrees with the figures given for 100% defeat rate when we disagree with a law.

    https://gallery.mailchimp.com/1026e6...nce.pdf#page=5
    And you completely sidestepped my point. You assume that every time the Minister voted against something it was always and forever the right decision and in our interests. You ignore the times they ignored the concerns of the devolved administrations (sovereignty, ooer!), or voted against the opinions of the majority of elected British MEPs or of their own party.

    By this logic, Scotland should just up and leave already, as Scotland always loses votes in the House of Commons.

    And correct, I elect my MP who is responsible for my constituency and for their role in Parliament.
    In the UK, we have 1 MP per around 92000 people.
    In the EU, we have 1 MEP per around 878082 people.
    It's clear how much more personal and representative our MP system is than our MEP system.
    And this is entirely irrelevant. Sulking about the size of constituencies is just weird. How dare Europe be so massive!
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Why do Eurosceptics complain about the EU being undemocratic? If it were more democratic, it would have a greater mandate and therefore more powers. Had Juncker been directly elected he would have far more power and we would be edging towards a European superstate.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    - which should it be copied by all member states would destroy it.
    [citation needed]

    You can't just make a statement like that. Why would direct democracy "destroy" Britain?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EuanF)
    It does not matter how important the votes were, simply that we opposed them. It was directly against our will that these measures would be placed on us, and they were placed on us anyway. To quote Juncker - “If it's a Yes, we will say 'on we go', and if it's a No we will say 'we continue’,”
    Oh how convenient that you set the standard for victory in debate here. I reject your premise. End of.

    There's no point comparing the EU to the UK democracy when we already know the definiton of a perfect democracy and from that we can see how strongly the EU undermines it. To pull your N.K argument out, it's perfectly democratic because they at least get to cast a vote for their only candidate - we don't even get that luxury
    What a cop-out. There is no such thing as a perfect democracy, and if you throw the EU over the coals for not meeting such a standard then the UK still deserves to be criticised for it. No dice.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    And you completely sidestepped my point. You assume that every time the Minister voted against something it was always and forever the right decision and in our interests. You ignore the times they ignored the concerns of the devolved administrations (sovereignty, ooer!), or voted against the opinions of the majority of elected British MEPs or of their own party.
    - We elected representatives
    - Therefore the actions of the representatives are the expression of the will of the people
    - The actions of the representatives were opposed
    - Ergo the Eu opposes the will of the British people

    Constituency size does matter. Fewer people per representative is better as the elected government more proportionally represents the electorate.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EuanF)
    - We elected representatives
    - Therefore the actions of the representatives are the expression of the will of the people
    - The actions of the representatives were opposed
    - Ergo the Eu opposes the will of the British people
    Except the MEPs in some circumstances backed the proposal. So your criteria is met, and frustrated by mean old UK Government ministers.

    Constituency size does matter. Fewer people per representative is better as the elected government more proportionally represents the electorate.
    Well let's divide the House of Commons even further and have 1,300 MPs. Sound good?
    Online

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EuanF)
    [citation needed]

    You can't just make a statement like that. Why would direct democracy "destroy" Britain?
    I said if all member states copied the Swiss (economic model) it would make the swiss modus operandi obsolete. Additionally, whilst it has its own armed forces its essentially buffered from all angles by friendly large states- which were they to become fragmented would be more open to coercsion by larger powers.

    For instance- see Italy pre unification- at the mercy to the whims of larger economic powers. There is strength in size.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    Except the MEPs in some circumstances backed the proposal. So your criteria is met, and frustrated by mean old UK Government ministers.
    Do you even remember what this line of argument was about? When we vote against a proposal affecting the UK negatively we consistently lose.

    (Original post by gladders)
    Well let's divide the House of Commons even further and have 1,300 MPs. Sound good?
    You're starting to yourself realise why democracy isn't feasible on enourmous scales. The UK is at about the sweet spot for the size of a democracy, having existed for hundreds of years and changing sizes until it reaches a comfortable medium between people being fairly represented and being small enough to be manageable.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EuanF)
    Do you even remember what this line of argument was about? When we vote against a proposal affecting the UK negatively we consistently lose.
    Who's 'we'? When was the last time you inquired with the Minister what his voting position was? When was the last time you checked what the issue was? How do you know that the minister was voting in your interests? How can you with confidence say he had anything like the confidence of millions of Brits every time he voted in Council?

    You can't.

    How is it more important when the Minister is defeated for you than when British MEPs are on the winning side in Parliament, and concur with defeating the Minister in Council?

    You're starting to yourself realise why democracy isn't feasible on enourmous scales. The UK is at about the sweet spot for the size of a democracy, having existed for hundreds of years and changing sizes until it reaches a comfortable medium between people being fairly represented and being small enough to be manageable.
    Again, how convenient for you. The UK is the sweet spot. Guys, we sorted it all out now. We can hive off chunks of the US and Russia, we're doing them a favour. The UK is the perfect size.

    We weren't when we were 60 million Brits, of course, and we'd better start worrying in a few years time when there's a hundred million of us. We'll have to let Scotland and East Anglia go at that point to get us some ballast :rolleyes:
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    trim
    We referring to the British representatives. The data (72 lost votes) is of when our Minister voted against a proposal and lost.
    How do I know he was voting in my interests? He might not have been - he wasn't elected by the British people.
    What matters though is that he was our representative, and that he was defeated consistently.

    As for the second point, do you know what sort of a system the US is? Is it federal, or is it centrally governed like the UK?
    Oh, it's federal, is it? Huh. Fancy that. When the democracy got too large, it splits into many smaller democracies which function at a more proportional level.
    Same deal with Russia, see Chechnya etc.

    Clearly there are changes in the way our democracy works in the UK. As our population grows and our representation decreases, political movements for better proportional representation have popped up. This isn't coincidental, this is democracy trying to return to a steady state.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EuanF)
    We referring to the British representatives.
    You are referring to one, yes, but deliberately ignoring 73 British elected MEPs for the sake of your own argument.

    The data (72 lost votes) is of when our Minister voted against a proposal and lost.
    How do I know he was voting in my interests? He might not have been - he wasn't elected by the British people.
    What matters though is that he was our representative, and that he was defeated consistently.
    And on the winning side thousands of other times. I care not.

    As for the second point, do you know what sort of a system the US is? Is it federal, or is it centrally governed like the UK?
    Oh, it's federal, is it? Huh. Fancy that. When the democracy got too large, it splits into many smaller democracies which function at a more proportional level.
    Same deal with Russia, see Chechnya etc.
    So are you arguing that the EU becoming a federal state? Because if you criticise the EU for being undemocratic and want it to be more democratic, that's what the end result will be.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EuanF)
    You're starting to yourself realise why democracy isn't feasible on enourmous scales. The UK is at about the sweet spot for the size of a democracy, having existed for hundreds of years and changing sizes until it reaches a comfortable medium between people being fairly represented and being small enough to be manageable.
    Unfortunately, this is your opinion.

    I might protest at having my voice drowned in a sea of 200,000 people. Why can't I have someone who represents my neighbourhood? Conversely, I might say that 10 million is the perfect ward size for a democracy.

    It only seems like the UK has got it right because you're used to it.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    And on the winning side thousands of other times. I care not.
    "I do not care when I am imposed on against my will as long as I won some other times."

    This is what the remain voters actually beleive, incredible

    I'll do you a few minor favours, then me and my friends will vote to take your car off you. You don't mind, right? You got what you wanted all those other times, after all :rolleyes:

    Yes, the conclusion of the EU is that it will eventually become a federalised system and our country that has existed for thousands of years, that millions of lives have been fought for, will become of little more importance than a small US state.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EuanF)
    "I do not care when I am imposed on against my will as long as I won some other times."

    This is what the remain voters actually beleive, incredible
    That's the give-and-take of life, bud. Do you expect to get your way every time? Are you five years old or something?

    I'll do you a few minor favours, then me and my friends will vote to take your car off you. You don't mind, right? You got what you wanted all those other times, after all :rolleyes:
    So when my MP next loses a vote in the House of Commons, do I have the right to throw a wobbly about my democratic rights being violated?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BasicMistake)
    Unfortunately, this is your opinion.

    I might protest at having my voice drowned in a sea of 200,000 people. Why can't I have someone who represents my neighbourhood? Conversely, I might say that 10 million is the perfect ward size for a democracy.

    It only seems like the UK has got it right because you're used to it.
    We're one of the best represented nations in Europe in terms of MPs per capita. Why can't you have someone who represents your neighbourhood? Chances are, you do. You'll have voted for a councillor to represent your ward. Your council interacts closely with your MP whom you also elected. Your neighbourhood is pretty well represented. Comparitavely, entire towns are unrepresented in the EU parliament.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brussels sprouts
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.