Brexitmageddon

Started by Baron, Fri 24/06/2016 23:05:41

Previous topic - Next topic

Atelier

Quote from: Snarky on Thu 06/10/2016 20:12:03
Most democratic countries have multi-party systems where no one party tends to 50% of the vote. The elections determine the proportional representation of parties in parliament, and then they have to form coalitions to secure a majority. By your logic, that's not democratic, because the party you vote for will always be a minority.

Yes, even in proportional representation there is a subtle difference between national and EU parliaments. In national parliaments, the opposition is decided by your fellow countrymen, whereas the opposition in the EU parliament is always decided by others who may very well never have set foot in your country. So:

Quote from: Snarky on Thu 06/10/2016 20:12:03
Nor does it make it more undemocratic if the people who are outvoting you happen to be from another country, as long as they are members of the political unit you're voting for. You and people who think like you might be outvoted on some UK law even though a majority support it in your neighborhood, simply because people in London or in Scotland disagree. Similarly, you might be outvoted on an EU law because people in Germany or France disagree. Why is one thing democratic and the other not?

There is a greater, palpable chance for each citizen in a national government to participate in the government in their country. It is even possible to stand for election yourself if you wanted to. And although values differ between Labour to Conservative most major parties will always be on the ballot box in each constituency, and all parties represent the bounds of feeling in the country. So although I may not agree on a particular issue I will not feel it "unfair" if say, the SNP successfully opposes a Bill. The SNP were elected in my country by fellow citizens.

This is different with the EU because as it is another tier of democracy, the opposition is necessarily elected by a different electorate with different choices on their ballot box, which you have no way to influence, and most of the time do not even know who forms the opposition.

Now obviously I know that this is part-and-parcel of how the EU works, it could not work any other way. But as an academic judgment you must concede that from the point of view of an individual member state, the European Parliament is inherently at least more undemocratic than a national parliament; and not equally democratic, as you say.

Radiant

Quote from: Atelier on Fri 07/10/2016 09:19:39
This is different with the EU because as it is another tier of democracy
No, it is exactly the same, just involving more people. You're seeing "academic" differences that in practice just don't exist.

Snarky

Again, you're arguing as if nationality is some fundamental division of humanity: everyone in a single country "belong together" while people from different countries are entirely alien to each other. That's basically to say that you have more in common politically with some BNP fascist than with a mainstream social democrat or conservative from some other country.

In reality, parties with similar ideologies from different countries find they have a lot in common, and form coherent blocs and coalitions in the European Parliament.

Quote from: Atelier on Fri 07/10/2016 09:19:39
There is a greater, palpable chance for each citizen in a national government to participate in the government in their country. It is even possible to stand for election yourself if you wanted to.

If you want to, you can run for EU elections as well.

The bigger the political unit, the less influence each individual has, obviously. So does that mean the UK is undemocratic compared to local council elections?

Quote from: Atelier on Fri 07/10/2016 09:19:39
And although values differ between Labour to Conservative most major parties will always be on the ballot box in each constituency, and all parties represent the bounds of feeling in the country. So although I may not agree on a particular issue I will not feel it "unfair" if say, the SNP successfully opposes a Bill. The SNP were elected in my country by fellow citizens.

And if an EU bill you support is defeated, it is defeated by delegates elected by your fellow EU citizens, representing the bounds of opinion within the EU.
(Whether or not the SNP is on the ballot in Wales, I don't suppose they have any chance of winning any constituencies there, and clearly they as a party do not represent your local interests, so the distinction is barely meaningful.)

QuoteBut as an academic judgment you must concede that from the point of view of an individual member state, the European Parliament is inherently at least more undemocratic than a national parliament; and not equally democratic, as you say.

No. The whole thing is a circular argument starting from the assumption that the "nation" is the natural political unit.

Jack

You don't realise how bad things are until you are trying to claw your way back to a system as deeply flawed as democracy.

Now let's pretend for example that Greeks are in no way different from the English. And that diluting your vote, oh, about 28 times is an academic distinction.

If this were a democracy, intellectual dishonesty would be our leader now.

KyriakosCH

While the people in Britain in no way were hit with a crisis the size of the one we in Greece are (and unable to change it while still on the dreadful euro), it is very obvious that without the overall and ongoing EU crisis the british would not have voted to leave. During the Blair years the conservative party was advocating for less ties to the EU, but not outright leaving it. The disaster which followed enabled a shift in public opinion, even if it was mostly intuitive and not entirely logical in Britain.

That said, i am sure they will do fine. Democracy always wins:

This is the Way - A dark allegory. My Twitter!  My Youtube!

Andail

Jack, a vote isn't diluted - it either affects a larger area but is shared with more people, or it covers less and needs to be shared less.

I think Snarky explained this quite well.

Edit:
On a related note, the British pound took a real dive this morning.

Radiant

Quote from: Snarky on Fri 07/10/2016 10:06:19
No. The whole thing is a circular argument starting from the assumption that the "nation" is the natural political unit.
Precisely.

Danvzare

Quote from: KyriakosCH on Fri 07/10/2016 10:41:43
it is very obvious that without the overall and ongoing EU crisis the british would not have voted to leave.
People here have been wanting to leave the EU since as far back as I can remember. Which means at least the early 2000's.
As a matter of fact, I think it's only the younger people who didn't want to (or didn't care if we) leave.

Atelier

After thinking about it I admit I'm wrong in a political context, but if we begin looking at the EU through the prism of its legislative abilities, I am not so sure.

Quote from: Snarky on Fri 07/10/2016 10:06:19
The bigger the political unit, the less influence each individual has, obviously. So does that mean the UK is undemocratic compared to local council elections?

I feel this is a false analogy for the EU: local councils set policy and bye-laws at a local level; national governments legislate at the national level; and the EU also legislates at a (supra) national level. For all intents and purposes, EU law is one and the same with national law in the sense that both are incorporated with at least equal status in a member state's legal system (and even then, EU law is always supreme in cases of conflict with national law).

So if we accept that laws have the potential to bind a nation even if 100% of the electorate elected MEPs who unanimously opposed it, then yes it is more undemocratic than a national parliament. In a national parliament, 100% of the electorate electing MPs who unanimously opposed a Bill would not result in a law being enacted in the country. Because national law and EU law have the same binding status, this is where the subtle distinction can be drawn between the two parliaments. In this sense, it is fair to talk about the nation as the natural political unit, because we are looking through the frame of national law.

I admit I'm not talking anywhere near practically, hence I only mentioned voting blocs and coalitions briefly. But on an academic and theoretical level I take objection to the idea that the European Parliament is equally democratic to a national parliament, when the former legislates at a level that is ostensibly national law, yet the decision is influenced by 27 other countries. The point being that in theory at least your view always has the potential to be in a minority in the European Parliament, but in the national parliament it is not capped at a statistical minority. Both systems have the same practical effect (legislation at a national level), so in theory the legislative function of the European Parliament is more undemocratic than a national parliament's.

KyriakosCH

Quote from: Danvzare on Fri 07/10/2016 11:06:26
Quote from: KyriakosCH on Fri 07/10/2016 10:41:43
it is very obvious that without the overall and ongoing EU crisis the british would not have voted to leave.
People here have been wanting to leave the EU since as far back as I can remember. Which means at least the early 2000's.
As a matter of fact, I think it's only the younger people who didn't want to (or didn't care if we) leave.

Maybe, although back in the same period i was studying in England (graduated from a university there, uni of Essex) and there was no debate to fully leave the EU. Maybe it started briefly afterwards, but surely post 2007 it became a lot worse, in parallel to the farcical state of the "union" (european, not kingdomian := )
This is the Way - A dark allegory. My Twitter!  My Youtube!

Jack

#90
Quote from: Andail on Fri 07/10/2016 10:53:00
Jack, a vote isn't diluted - it either affects a larger area but is shared with more people, or it covers less and needs to be shared less.

A larger jurisdiction does not in any way justify a more diluted vote (shared with more people), which is beside the fact it totally disregards the cultural differences of the various peoples of europe.

The fact that this very same megalogovernment is secretly planning to hand over complete legislative control to multinational corporations is so unorthodox that it cannot even be considered.

Shall we dream instead about all those lives we can touch with our token votes?

EDIT: I want to clarify Andail that I recognise that you don't necessarily support one view or the other. I'm just saying that it's a really bad trade-off.

Ali

I'm shocked and bewildered to discover that Brexiteers aren't now pushing for the dissolution of the unelected House of Lords, an independent Scotland and Wales and a united Ireland.

After all, it's national democracy that really matters to them, not jingoism, bigotry and a general sense that everything was better in the 50s.

Scavenger

Quote from: Ali on Fri 07/10/2016 12:57:17
I'm shocked and bewildered to discover that Brexiteers aren't now pushing for the dissolution of the unelected House of Lords, an independent Scotland and Wales and a united Ireland.

After all, it's national democracy that really matters to them, not jingoism, bigotry and a general sense that everything was better in the 50s.

I've been trying to find a way to write that all day, and I'm glad you said it before me, Ali.

It's like, Scotland voted quite strongly to remain in the EU. I think it's kind of hypocritical that we be forced out of it because some English people really wanted to destroy connections with the EU because they thought it wasn't democratic enough. After all, we didn't want it, but THEY voted for it. The only response I've seen from Brexiters though is "you're just sore losers, nyeh nyeh we won #MakeBritainGreatAgain" which is like ?????? We have major concerns over the competency of our government and the reasons for their decisions??

It is about jingoism though, there is no doubt about it.

Gurok

Quote from: Ali on Fri 07/10/2016 12:57:17
I'm shocked and bewildered to discover that Brexiteers aren't now pushing for the dissolution of the unelected House of Lords, an independent Scotland and Wales and a united Ireland.

After all, it's national democracy that really matters to them, not jingoism, bigotry and a general sense that everything was better in the 50s.

I've stayed out of this thread till now because it seems to be a bit of an echo chamber, but I can't let this slide.

What you present, the idea that separate nations are better than international unions, is really justifiable. I supported the recent Scottish independence referendum AND Brexit for this reason. Power becomes centralised very easily, but doesn't readily flow the other way. A future where lots of tiny separate nations compete is a future I'd like to live in. A future with one central power (the end game for international politico-economic unions) is a dystopia to me.

There's a balance to be struck between international power and what can be practically governed. The EU is too big and too diverse, with really undemocratic ways of passing laws. It was a boon initially for the poorer nations, but it's a mess now. Germany is holding the whole thing together -- the only country left in Europe that actually produces things people want.

I know I'm not European, but I feel the break-up of the EU is a global issue.
[img]http://7d4iqnx.gif;rWRLUuw.gi

Jack

Quote from: Scavenger on Fri 07/10/2016 14:32:32
It's like, Scotland voted quite strongly to remain in the EU. I think it's kind of hypocritical that we be forced out of it because some English people really wanted to destroy connections with the EU because they thought it wasn't democratic enough. After all, we didn't want it, but THEY voted for it.

It's almost like... the two nations kind of want different things... and being politically lumped together doesn't work... or... maybe I think I'm craving corn chips.

Problem

Quote from: Gurok on Fri 07/10/2016 15:37:42
A future where lots of tiny separate nations compete is a future I'd like to live in.

A pretty good description of Europe's past, isn't it? Don't know if I should put this in spoiler tags, but... it didn't end well. ;)

Yes, the EU has many flaws and it's not fully democratic. For example, the European parliament, the only real democratic institution of the EU, only has limited legislative power. But we Europeans can still be glad and thankful that we live in Europe's most peaceful era in centuries. The EU is a very good idea, and history tells us why nationalism is not the way to go. Instead of leaving the EU or breaking up, we should try to improve it and make it more democratic than it is now. It was never easy, and reforming this beast would be a huge task, but we would be absolutely crazy if we just gave up everything that has been achieved after WW2.

Ali

Quote from: Jack on Fri 07/10/2016 18:59:42
It's almost like... the two nations kind of want different things... and being politically lumped together doesn't work... or... maybe I think I'm craving corn chips.

By that logic, the north of England should definitely be a different country to the south of England. And London should be a separate city state. And... where does it end?

None of the British voices advocating for Brexit support Scottish Independence. I can accept an objection on principle to unions between nations - but that's not what fuelled the Brexit vote. It also wasn't, as some of my Greek friends hoped, an attack on the EU for its inhumanity in dealing with the refugee crisis. We wanted out of the EU so we could treat refugees and migrants even worse.

Jack

#97
Quote from: Problem on Fri 07/10/2016 19:25:09
A pretty good description of Europe's past, isn't it? Don't know if I should put this in spoiler tags, but... it didn't end well. ;)

You mean the fact you eventually ended up under an imp like van rompuy? ;)

Not sure which period in history you're referring to, but technology has changed this planet by orders of magnitude since then. I don't mean it's changed people, but what's possible in terms of government and collaboration currently is unprecedented in known history. In terms of what we could do now, it's kind of unthinkable to still be tethered to the sinking apathy-based political system which currently infects most cultures.

EDIT:

Quote from: Ali on Fri 07/10/2016 19:34:35
By that logic, the north of England should definitely be a different country to the south of England. And London should be a separate city state. And... where does it end?

It ends wherever you think it should end. What if you could find the exact legislation you agreed with by moving to the appropriate state? Be it a city state, smaller or larger. Moronia will still be a huge country, for anyone who wants numbers.

RickJ

QuoteI know I'm not European, but I feel the break-up of the EU is a global issue.
Hmmm, now that you mention it Gurok does kind of sound like a Klingon name. (laugh)

IMHO, if a process results in oppression and loss of personal liberty then, yes, it's not democratic. The EU parliament seems to me to be little more that than a communist socialist politburo.

The only way a large top-down government such as the EU can work if there is one top boss running everything.  And even then a king or a starship would have to stop by once in a while to get "their cut".

I also think it's naive and bigoted to believe that people from all cultures can peacefully and harmoniously co-exist in close proximity within the same neighborhood (mass raping for example).  There is an underlying presumption, in this belief, that one's own culture is the gold standard of morality and that all human beings aspire to that standard.  It may be subtle but it's bigotry all the same.  Hypocritically those who hold such beliefs dear are often the first and loudest to cry "RACIST!!!" when opposing opinions are presented.


Problem

Quote from: RickJ on Fri 07/10/2016 20:28:33
The EU parliament seems to me to be little more that than a communist socialist politburo.
You're probably confusing it with the European commission. The European parliament is just that: a parliament, directly elected, but one that hasn't all the rights a parliament usually has in a democracy. It doesn't even have legislative initiative (the right to propose a new law). If the parliament played a more important role, the European election would actually mean something. But as it is now, most people don't see the point in voting, because in the end it doesn't affect the decisions that are made. That's the major flaw in how the EU is constructed, if you ask me. However, these structures have grown historically, and what is now the EU originally started as an economic community, not a political one. This makes it difficult to reform.

But if you're talking about oppression and a loss of personal liberty: The EU guarantees free movement of people, services etc. across its member states. As a EU citizen I can travel, study, work and do business freely in any other EU country, and by leaving the EU these liberties are lost. People tend to take these things for granted, as if the EU was only there to annoy people with regulations. If Great Britain still wants access to the common market, they will have to follow EU rules anyway. But at the same time they are about lose many of these rights. I fail to see in which way this results in more freedom. But sometimes you only realize what you had when you lose it. It's both funny and bitter how "What is the EU" trended on Google... the day after the referendum.

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk