E.U Leave Or Remain: Absolute Or Shared Sovereignty?

Eurosceptics state that leaving the E.U shall lead to the U.K having absolute sovereignty enabling the U.K to construct its own laws and accept or reject E.U level laws as is deemed reasonable; the Prime Minister, meanwhile, suggests a reformation where Governments of E.U countries have more of a say regarding a construction of E.U level laws in a shared sovereignty context. President Juncker and First Vice President Timmermans have stated the importance of national Governments acting as the middle man between the E.U and the citizens of each country.

Is absolute sovereignty ideal for the U.K's national and international interests? Would a shared responsibility lead to a better, reformed E.U that took the U.K’s interests more seriously? With absolute sovereignty, who would have the right to accept or reject U.K laws and where would this responsibility be best place, on the Government level or local authority and business level?

Eurosceptics state that leaving the E.U shall lead to the U.K having absolute sovereignty enabling the U.K to construct its own laws and accept or reject E.U level laws as is deemed reasonable; the Prime Minister, meanwhile, suggests a reformation where Governments of E.U countries have more of a say regarding a construction of E.U level laws in a shared sovereignty context. President Juncker and First Vice President Timmermans have stated the importance of national Governments acting as the middle man between the E.U and the citizens of each country.

Is absolute sovereignty ideal for the U.K's national and international interests? Would a shared responsibility lead to a better, reformed E.U that took the U.K’s interests more seriously? With absolute sovereignty, who would have the right to accept or reject U.K laws and where would this responsibility be best place, on the Government level or local authority and business level?

Reforming the EU will require crisis, I suspect the next economic crisis will deliver the results involving the full democratization of the EU, same for the PRC.

In what way would you want the EU further democratised? You make the way it is now it sound like a tyranny.

Tyranny might be too harsh a word unless your a Greek but until EU citizens can elect those who make legislation it ceases to be a democracy.

I think the trouble is that in doing so you create a European Superstate, which from what I understand eurosceptics are pretty phobic of.

I honestly think the EU is a remarkably democratic organisation, at least, as democratic as it can be, by and large, without becoming more of a country.

Personally, I am satisfied that the Commission is subordinate to the Member States and the Parliament, and they to their respective electorates.

No country has absolute sovereignty.


Posted from TSR Mobile

What eurosceptics are against is the democratic deficit.

It's not democratic though, by definition it fails to meet the requirement.

No country has absolute sovereignty.

Tyranny might be too harsh a word unless your a Greek but until EU citizens can elect those who make legislation it ceases to be a democracy.

We do elect the members of the European Parliament, and legislation through the co-decision making process cannot move forward without the parliament.

The Commision can simply keep stuffing it in until it gets passed or go directly to national governments if necessary.

The Commision can simply keep stuffing it in until it gets passed or go directly to national governments if necessary.

Hm, both of those seem to represent democracy to me: we elect the members of the European Parliament, we elect the national governments.

This is untrue. Legislation needs to be passed by Parliament.

What do you mean by 'stuffing it'?

Democracy is majority rule, the majority do not make EU rules, therefore the EU is not a democracy.

They can keep trying to push the legislation through the EU Parliament until it succeeds, EU legislation can also be implemented at a national level if member state parliaments pass it themselves.

Democracy is majority rule, the majority do not make EU rules, therefore the EU is not a democracy.

Can you explain what this means? In the UK the majority (ie more than 50%) vote for the government in power, so in your terms the UK itself is not a democracy.

They can keep trying to push the legislation through the EU Parliament until it succeeds, EU legislation can also be implemented at a national level if member state parliaments pass it themselves.

Yes they do. QMV. Look it up.



Can you give an example of where this has happened in the European Parliament? The UK Government can in theory do it in Westminster, but they don't.

Democracy is majority rule, the majority do not make EU rules, therefore the EU is not a democracy.

Can you explain what this means? In the UK the majority (ie more than 50%) vote for the government in power, so in your terms the UK itself is not a democracy.



In fact this is really the only way EU legislation can come into force - national governments have to draught their own laws and put them through their own parliaments (even if that's a law that says EU regulation has immediate effect). ie see the Working Time Directive in UK law in various places.

The European Parliament president Jerzy Buzek proposed in 2010 that Commissioners be directly elected, by member states placing their candidate at the top of their voting lists in European elections. That would give them individually, and the body as a whole, a democratic mandate. Implying the current system is undemocratic.

Electing the Commission is a terrible idea. They are not the main legislative body, and they make decidedly apolitical decisions as the enforcement branch of the EU - ones which need not be affected by political influence.