United States of Europe....Is this what you want?

[cunning fergus]

My knowledge of the EU is limited, so if you can manage to hold a discussion with me without being rude I would love to understand your point.

From what i can work out representatives of the EU parliament are voted for by the public of each country. But the EU commission are send by the government of each country. The commission make policy which is sent through to the Parliament to be passed (am I right so far?)

the UK has the house of commons in which representatives are voted for by the people and the House of Lords which are selected by some other process.


In neither system to we get to vote directly for the leaders, speakers or presidents
One house voted for and one house selcted by other means.. sorry but it seems pretty similar to me, what do you see as the difference?

OK, no problem, I have attached links to the EU in previous posts, it's all there.

The key point here is that the EU commission is responsible for creating EU law, the EU Parliament ratifies and/or amends it. So, for EU directives the Commission create the law, it is ratified by the EU Parliament then it is implemented by the member state via their own local act passed by the own local parliament. In these cases the member states can amend directives...........so not a problem.

However the EU Commission also has the power to create and impose laws via Regulations which they do regularly (e.g. capital requirements regulation, which will set how banks can remunerate staff).

EU regulations will typically be sent to the EU Parliament but once passed by the EU Parliament they go straight into law in the member states without approval by the member states local parliament.

The Lisbon treaty which created this power also conferred the EU Commission with the power to create regulations and impose them directly on member states without ratification by the EU Parliament.

The EU Commission is not elected by the EU electorate, but by politicians.

The EU Parliament is elected by the EU electorate.

Therefore if you were to compare this to the UK it would be like giving the electorate the right to vote in the Lords but not MPs in the Commons. In the UK it is the MPs that create and pass the law in the commons before it is passed onto the Lords for ratification and/or amendment.

Put another way executive power in the UK resides in the commons, just like the power is in the EU resides in the Commission. The UK electorate vote for who wields the power in the UK, European politicians vote for who wields the power in the EU.

The two are not comparable on that basis, and I know which one is more democratic...............what about you?

 

[BadFish]

OK, no problem, I have attached links to the EU in previous posts, it's all there.

The key point here is that the EU commission is responsible for creating EU law, the EU Parliament ratifies and/or amends it. So, for EU directives the Commission create the law, it is ratified by the EU Parliament then it is implemented by the member state via their own local act passed by the own local parliament. In these cases the member states can amend directives...........so not a problem.

However the EU Commission also has the power to create and impose laws via Regulations which they do regularly (e.g. capital requirements regulation, which will set how banks can remunerate staff).

EU regulations will typically be sent to the EU Parliament but once passed by the EU Parliament they go straight into law in the member states without approval by the member states local parliament.

The Lisbon treaty which created this power also conferred the EU Commission with the power to create regulations and impose them directly on member states without ratification by the EU Parliament.

The EU Commission is not elected by the EU electorate, but by politicians.

The EU Parliament is elected by the EU electorate.

Therefore if you were to compare this to the UK it would be like giving the electorate the right to vote in the Lords but not MPs in the Commons. In the UK it is the MPs that create and pass the law in the commons before it is passed onto the Lords for ratification and/or amendment.

Put another way executive power in the UK resides in the commons, just like the power is in the EU resides in the Commission. The UK electorate vote for who wields the power in the UK, European politicians vote for who wields the power in the EU.

The two are not comparable on that basis, and I know which one is more democratic...............what about you?

Okay I see your point here. But surely the commission is elected by the politicians that are the elected representatives of the people so in this sense the electorate has more say in what goes on in the EU than the UK government as the electorate has no say in who goes into the House of Lords.

To answer your question I would say that neither are more or less democratic just different systems. Personally I would prefer a system where representatives of both levels are voted for by the electorate. Given the choice of the ratifiers (Lords/Parliament) or the makers (commons/Commission) being voted for by the electorate, well to be honest i can see the advantages of both. When living in the UK I never really understood the point of the House of Lords, they didn't appear to do much. Since moving to Australia I rather like the role of the senate in 'keeping the *******s honest'. The Senate here certainly appear to have more power and be more useful than the House of Lords in the UK (although i do concede that my interest in politics whilst living in the UK was a pretty low priority so i may have misjudged the Upper house somewhat).

 

[Fungus]

Imagine all the people, sharing all the world...

I've got two thumbs, why can't I use them both on NSC for this post? I demand a recount.

 

[cunning fergus]

Okay I see your point here. But surely the commission is elected by the politicians that are the elected representatives of the people so in this sense the electorate has more say in what goes on in the EU than the UK government as the electorate has no say in who goes into the House of Lords.

To answer your question I would say that neither are more or less democratic just different systems. Personally I would prefer a system where representatives of both levels are voted for by the electorate. Given the choice of the ratifiers (Lords/Parliament) or the makers (commons/Commission) being voted for by the electorate, well to be honest i can see the advantages of both. When living in the UK I never really understood the point of the House of Lords, they didn't appear to do much. Since moving to Australia I rather like the role of the senate in 'keeping the *******s honest'. The Senate here certainly appear to have more power and be more useful than the House of Lords in the UK (although i do concede that my interest in politics whilst living in the UK was a pretty low priority so i may have misjudged the Upper house somewhat).

Come on, giving Politicians the power to elect other Politicians to make the laws is not a position that provides the electorate with more accountability to the electorate, it is the opposite of that position.

I think your ideology is slipping in here again.

Thomas Jefferson said, when a Govt fears it's people there is liberty, when a people fears it's Govt there is tyranny.

As far as the EU Commission is concerned, as with other EU institutions (apart from the Parliament) there is not currently a way that they can fear the people.......so what have we got?

 

[BadFish]

Come on, giving Politicians the power to elect other Politicians to make the laws is not a position that provides the electorate with more accountability to the electorate, it is the opposite of that position.

I think your ideology is slipping in here again.

Thomas Jefferson said, when a Govt fears it's people there is liberty, when a people fears it's Govt there is tyranny.

As far as the EU Commission is concerned, as with other EU institutions (apart from the Parliament) there is not currently a way that they can fear the people.......so what have we got?

So tell me how the house of lords fear the people?

 

[Leighgull]

It's the EU army that worries me. The Germans are pretty tasty but the frogs and the Eyeties are useless.

Ffs.

 

[cunning fergus]

So tell me how the house of lords fear the people?

The lords argument is a distraction, do you think a dubious level of electoral accountability in the UK with the lords justifies the even more dubious electoral accountability of the EU Commission?

If you think that the lords should be elected then it follows so should the EU commission..........agree?

In the UK the lords is being reformed slowly, in time it will be an elected chamber.......I can live with that. But then the lords do not create the law whereas MPs who do make the law are. The balance is acceptable.

In the EU the commission makes the law and they are unelected by the electorate. The balance is wrong.

For the life of me I can't think why you think it's the same?

 

[turienzo's lovechild]

can't be bothered to read through the whole thread, but I assume someone has pointed out that our football team would be ****ing incredible

in fact we'd dominate pretty much every sport

 

[BadFish]

The lords argument is a distraction, do you think a dubious level of electoral accountability in the UK with the lords justifies the even more dubious electoral accountability of the EU Commission?

No I don't think this I was asking about the point made earlier that the EU system is less democratic than the UK system. I cannot see that it is, i do see that it is different but no less democratic.

If you think that the lords should be elected then it follows so should the EU commission..........agree?

I suppose this would be the most democratic system, having said that i presume there are reasons why this is not the case.

In the UK the lords is being reformed slowly, in time it will be an elected chamber.......I can live with that. But then the lords do not create the law whereas MPs who do make the law are. The balance is acceptable.

The question is similar to your point in that why can you live with the imbalance in the UK system and not the imbalance in the EU system.

In the EU the commission makes the law and they are unelected by the electorate. The balance is wrong.

The Commission is elected by the representatives of the electorate and their decisions are ratified by those elected by the electorate. Not a perfect system I would agree but at the same time no worse than elected representatives making decisions which are ratified by people chosen by the Prime Minister, Queen or how ever else they are chosen.

For the life of me I can't think why you think it's the same?

I don't think they are the same. They are clearly different I just don't see that one is so much less democratic than the other. They are different systems of democracy with their own flaws.

Mostly though I think it is misleading to refer to EU representatives as 'unelected' because they are elected, some by the people and some by those elected by the people (more elected than those in the House of lords).

 

[cunning fergus]

No I don't think this I was asking about the point made earlier that the EU system is less democratic than the UK system. I cannot see that it is, i do see that it is different but no less democratic.



I suppose this would be the most democratic system, having said that i presume there are reasons why this is not the case.


The question is similar to your point in that why can you live with the imbalance in the UK system and not the imbalance in the EU system.


The Commission is elected by the representatives of the electorate and their decisions are ratified by those elected by the electorate. Not a perfect system I would agree but at the same time no worse than elected representatives making decisions which are ratified by people chosen by the Prime Minister, Queen or how ever else they are chosen.



I don't think they are the same. They are clearly different I just don't see that one is so much less democratic than the other. They are different systems of democracy with their own flaws.

Mostly though I think it is misleading to refer to EU representatives as 'unelected' because they are elected, some by the people and some by those elected by the people (more elected than those in the House of lords).

Right one last go, I have attached a couple of articles from pro EU commentators (not UKIP) so not biased on the issue of democracy in the EU so have a look, however, just for clarity here is part of one article.

"There’s no doubt that Europe’s political institutions are inadequate. Frankly, they are as messy as a scrambled egg. As one small example, only the most ardent Europhile can tell the difference between the European Council, the Council of the European Union (also known as the Council of Ministers, or simply ‘the Council’) and the Council of Europe. All of them have their own president, as does the European Commission and the European Parliament. Presidents and councils, everywhere you look, with names so similar that few can tell them apart. Beyond that, lines of authority are vague and esoteric and the public hardly knows who does what. To the public it all looks like a tangled mess of bureaucrats nestled in Brussels. At the most basic level, more imagination needs to put into naming these important bodies and leadership positions with distinctive titles that make them easily distinguishable.

But that’s just the beginning. A huge contributor to the democracy deficit is the fact that the average voter is stupefied by being four times removed from the chief legislative and executive body of the European Union, which is the European Commission. The Commission is a powerful body, increasingly so in reaction to the economic crisis, endowed to be both the enforcement arm as well as the only body that is permitted to initiate European-level legislation. Yet it is not even remotely elected directly by ‘We the People.’

Instead, voters directly elect their national members of Parliament, who in turn elect the 27 national heads of government, who in turn sit on the European Council; this body then nominates the European Commission and its President, subject to the approval of the European Parliament (whose members at least are directly elected). So national parliaments, which are the closest to the voters in each member state, are reduced to the role of a kind of electoral college while the heads of state who actually select the chief executive of the EU comprise an ‘electorate’ of a mere 27 voters. Sorry, but that’s not very democratic."

http://www.social-europe.eu/2013/06...g-some-meat-on-the-bones-of-habermas-critique

http://labourlist.org/2012/11/5-ways-to-tackle-europes-democratic-deficit/

They say "electoral college" in the article however this is really democratic centralism, this approach creates law by Politburo.........

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_centralism

Worse really is the fact that EU "democracy" was designed to be this way..................voters in the UK should be genuinely worried about losing their current direct right of suffrage................the fact that you (and others) can't see it is a testament to the prevailing view on here that even perfectly reasonable and balanced criticisms about the EU machine is disregarded out of hand.

As I have already indicated, dogmatic attitudes prevail on both sides of the debate, but these are driven by ideology not analysis of the underlying issue.

Many won't really care about the democratic issues about the EU because they don't really want the UK to be independently democratic in the first place.

 

[halbpro]

As a resident of Lewes, I'm not allowed to vote in UK elections for the representative of Hove. What's the difference?

Was going to make exactly this point. Brighton Pavilion, for example elected a Green MP, but she is not part of the government. If we were to go to a federalised system with European wide parties then the whole of the UK could elect people who end up in the minority. Only the scale is different.

 

[BadFish]

Right one last go, I have attached a couple of articles from pro EU commentators (not UKIP) so not biased on the issue of democracy in the EU so have a look, however, just for clarity here is part of one article.

"There’s no doubt that Europe’s political institutions are inadequate. Frankly, they are as messy as a scrambled egg. As one small example, only the most ardent Europhile can tell the difference between the European Council, the Council of the European Union (also known as the Council of Ministers, or simply ‘the Council’) and the Council of Europe. All of them have their own president, as does the European Commission and the European Parliament. Presidents and councils, everywhere you look, with names so similar that few can tell them apart. Beyond that, lines of authority are vague and esoteric and the public hardly knows who does what. To the public it all looks like a tangled mess of bureaucrats nestled in Brussels. At the most basic level, more imagination needs to put into naming these important bodies and leadership positions with distinctive titles that make them easily distinguishable.

But that’s just the beginning. A huge contributor to the democracy deficit is the fact that the average voter is stupefied by being four times removed from the chief legislative and executive body of the European Union, which is the European Commission. The Commission is a powerful body, increasingly so in reaction to the economic crisis, endowed to be both the enforcement arm as well as the only body that is permitted to initiate European-level legislation. Yet it is not even remotely elected directly by ‘We the People.’

Instead, voters directly elect their national members of Parliament, who in turn elect the 27 national heads of government, who in turn sit on the European Council; this body then nominates the European Commission and its President, subject to the approval of the European Parliament (whose members at least are directly elected). So national parliaments, which are the closest to the voters in each member state, are reduced to the role of a kind of electoral college while the heads of state who actually select the chief executive of the EU comprise an ‘electorate’ of a mere 27 voters. Sorry, but that’s not very democratic."

http://www.social-europe.eu/2013/06...g-some-meat-on-the-bones-of-habermas-critique

http://labourlist.org/2012/11/5-ways-to-tackle-europes-democratic-deficit/

They say "electoral college" in the article however this is really democratic centralism, this approach creates law by Politburo.........

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_centralism

Worse really is the fact that EU "democracy" was designed to be this way..................voters in the UK should be genuinely worried about losing their current direct right of suffrage................the fact that you (and others) can't see it is a testament to the prevailing view on here that even perfectly reasonable and balanced criticisms about the EU machine is disregarded out of hand.

As I have already indicated, dogmatic attitudes prevail on both sides of the debate, but these are driven by ideology not analysis of the underlying issue.

Many won't really care about the democratic issues about the EU because they don't really want the UK to be independently democratic in the first place.

You seem to be repeating yourself here so it is probably best to leave it at that. You don't think the EU is democratic enough and is less democratic than the UK system. Others, including myself disagree. Thanks for the info, it had been good talking to you, I have learned a lot.

 

[cunning fergus]

You seem to be repeating yourself here so it is probably best to leave it at that. You don't think the EU is democratic enough and is less democratic than the UK system. Others, including myself disagree. Thanks for the info, it had been good talking to you, I have learned a lot.

But I am not am I..........on the contrary I have directed you to 2 pro EU websites whose pro EU commentators are arguing the same point I have about a lack of democracy in the EU. As follows:

http://labourlist.org/about/

http://www.social-europe.eu/

The author on one piece is Steven Hill who has wrote a book advocating an integrated Europe.

http://www.social-europe.eu/author/steven-hill/

You have not written a book about the integration of Europe and/or a blog highlighting the defficiencies of the EU, however you disagree with their analysis.

Unfortunately I dont think you have learnt much at all.

 

[CheeseRolls]

But I am not am I..........on the contrary I have directed you to 2 pro EU websites whose pro EU commentators are arguing the same point I have about a lack of democracy in the EU. As follows:

http://labourlist.org/about/

http://www.social-europe.eu/

The author on one piece is Steven Hill who has wrote a book advocating an integrated Europe.

http://www.social-europe.eu/author/steven-hill/

You have not written a book about the integration of Europe and/or a blog highlighting the defficiencies of the EU, however you disagree with their analysis.

Unfortunately I dont think you have learnt much at all.

Any posts on football ? Just wondering like, you do seemed to be just a tad obsessed with the EU.

 

[Pretty pink fairy]

You seem to be repeating yourself here so it is probably best to leave it at that. You don't think the EU is democratic enough and is less democratic than the UK system. Others, including myself disagree. Thanks for the info, it had been good talking to you, I have learned a lot.

WHAT HAVE YOU GOT TO DO WITH THE EU
regards
DR

 

[cunning fergus]

Any posts on football ? Just wondering like, you do seemed to be just a tad obsessed with the EU.

Sure, from time to time.................I certainly don't come on to a football forum with the intention of getting immersed in political debate.

I am not obsessed by the EU, but I am by its dogmatic supporters who do not accept any balanced criticism, or that there is any other possible alternative to the UK's destiny than a fully federalised Europe.

This attitude is laughable because even some of the EU's most strident supporters are critical of its prevailing political structures; in December 2013 a pro EU economist who is a professor at the University of London wrote in his analysis of EU performance:

"The argument [that countries are better off in the EU] is also misconceived, because the relevant comparison is the counterfactual – would Greece, Cyprus, Spain, etc. be better able to manage their economies now if they had never joined? To me it is obvious that the answer is not a resounding and unambiguous “no”. If I am correct, that at best the balance of cost and benefits of membership in the Eurozone (and perhaps the Union itself) is unclear, this does not require country-by-country “reforms”. It requires fundamental changes in the governance and goals of the European Union."

http://www.social-europe.eu/2013/12/eurozone-report-card-2013/

Dont get me wrong everyone's entitled to their opinion, but come on...............should this kind of view be disregarded for ideological reasons?

That doesn't mean I am not pissed off with the departure of Barnes and Bridcutt either.................by the way.

 

[Landgull]

No I don't want to be a member of the US of Europe.

 

[BadFish]

But I am not am I..........on the contrary I have directed you to 2 pro EU websites whose pro EU commentators are arguing the same point I have about a lack of democracy in the EU. As follows:

http://labourlist.org/about/

http://www.social-europe.eu/

The author on one piece is Steven Hill who has wrote a book advocating an integrated Europe.

http://www.social-europe.eu/author/steven-hill/

You have not written a book about the integration of Europe and/or a blog highlighting the defficiencies of the EU, however you disagree with their analysis.

Unfortunately I dont think you have learnt much at all.

Maybe I haven't learnt what you wanted me to learn but thanks for the info. I will read the links when I have had a little more sleep.

I don't disagree with the deficiencies of the EU, I fully accept their are likely to be many (as there is with any and every poiltical system).

edit: (those links don't really seem to go anywhere, the first two go to the home page rather than a specific article)

 

[BadFish]

WHAT HAVE YOU GOT TO DO WITH THE EU
regards
DR

I am interested Pinko. With the wonders of modern technology it is possible to be interested in all kinds of things that are far away from you. You should try it, it may expand your horizons and intellect. Then you might be able to manage more than one line and a smilie during a discussion.

 

[East Preston Gull]

E.U is shit and was never the same after Rod Hull slid off his roof.
Thread over....I thank you.