Reply to: UK referendum - EU membership

[MicrosoftBob]

WHS.

Do you really want an elected EU President? To do that would give whoever it was a huge mandate and genuinely would put them above national leaders, which I certainly wouldn't want.

I'm sure Tony Blair thinks it's a good idea

[DodgyAgent]

Yes he can, maybe not by us directly but he can be removed by the European Parliament which is what nearly happened to Santer (he resigned instead.) But then again the European Parliament consists of the directly elected representatives of the people so really they answer to you, therefore if enough of you complain to their elected representative that the President is tulip, then they could remove him, so theoretically you are responsible for his office and removal

The lines of accountability between the electorates of sovereign states and the rulers and law makers in Brussels are so thin that they are irrelevant.

[VectraMan]

WHS.

Do you really want an elected EU President? To do that would give whoever it was a huge mandate and genuinely would put them above national leaders, which I certainly wouldn't want.

[darmstadt]

As stated, the supreme leader and his entire government can be sacked at the next election. The leader and his second in command, and their families, are also evicted from their homes with no notice.

Junker was again calling for an EU army last week. And he can't be removed. Think about that for a minute.

Yes he can, maybe not by us directly but he can be removed by the European Parliament which is what nearly happened to Santer (he resigned instead.) But then again the European Parliament consists of the directly elected representatives of the people so really they answer to you, therefore if enough of you complain to their elected representative that the President is tulip, then they could remove him, so theoretically you are responsible for his office and removal

[unixman]

So how is the UK more democratic than the EU?

As stated, the supreme leader and his entire government can be sacked at the next election. The leader and his second in command, and their families, are also evicted from their homes with no notice.

Junker was again calling for an EU army last week. And he can't be removed. Think about that for a minute.

[DodgyAgent]

Because they were gypsies? You're such a racist.



Wayside == side of the road

No. Because I am sh*t at sales

[d000hg]

That fell by the way side

Because they were gypsies? You're such a racist.



Wayside == side of the road

[Zero Liability]

Child slave labour?

Still too expensive.

[BrilloPad]

You PM'ed me some years back offering to supply me with workers from E. Europe.

Child slave labour?

[DodgyAgent]

You PM'ed me some years back offering to supply me with workers from E. Europe.

That fell by the way side

[d000hg]

It has. I do not deal with non UK "competitor" workers

You PM'ed me some years back offering to supply me with workers from E. Europe.

[DodgyAgent]

I think he meant that has impacted you negatively.

It has. I do not deal with non UK "competitor" workers

[VectraMan]

If the Burmese Junta elects a general as their leader, this does not mean that Burma is "democratic" in any recognizable way. Because traces of democracy are found within EU bodies does not mean that the EU as a whole is sufficiently democratic to be considered "democratic". Argue all night about how much democracy qualifies, but the acid test is always - can you remove the supreme leader at the next election ? "Yes" for all democratic nation states. "No" for the EU.

That's splitting hairs. Who is the "Supreme Leader?" - Juncker I suppose you'd say, but it's not like he rules the EU. He's only there with the backing of the national leaders AND the MEPs who are democratically elected, and okay you can't remove him directly, but you can remove the people that support him which amounts to the same thing. Would you be happy if we had an election for EU President?

The UK is governed by The Cabinet, and it's David Cameron not us that gets to choose who gets a position. Usually they're MPs, but they don't have to be, and nobody voting for an MP is voting to make them Home Secretary or whatever. And unlike the EU the people making the decisions don't have to be approved by parliament. And at least twice in my lifetime the "supreme leader" of the UK has been replaced without consulting the electorate or parliament.

So how is the UK more democratic than the EU?

[unixman]

democracy means anybody with any power is appointed by or answerable to somebody democratically elected.

No. Democracy in any recognizable sense is the ability to remove the supreme leader at the next election. C*ck on the block.

[unixman]

The European Commission is appointed by the European Council which is made up of the democratically elected leaders of the member states, and then approved by the democratically elected European Parliament. Democracy doesn't mean anybody with any power must be directly elected; democracy means anybody with any power is appointed by or answerable to somebody democratically elected.

No lack of democracy in the EU.

I didn't say there was no democracy in the EU, only that there is a democratic deficit, ie. the EU is less democratic than a nation state. This isn't my idea by the way, it is generally accepted by EU critics and supporters alike, is well documented, and Google is your friend.

If the Burmese Junta elects a general as their leader, this does not mean that Burma is "democratic" in any recognizable way. Because traces of democracy are found within EU bodies does not mean that the EU as a whole is sufficiently democratic to be considered "democratic". Argue all night about how much democracy qualifies, but the acid test is always - can you remove the supreme leader at the next election ? "Yes" for all democratic nation states. "No" for the EU.

I like my democracy of the open, fully qualified, nation state variety. And I hope Europe will embrace that model at some future date.