Democracy, Democracy, Democracy

[sasguru]

Actually the only thread I've started re Brexit in recent months, unlike you. Just the sort of meaningless reply I expect from you really.

You could resist unignoring me could you?
Proving even more what a complete sad sack you are.

Oh and you also missed the point completely.

[xoggoth]

You're wasting your valuable time Xoggoth

You are quite right. So fed up with seeing the meaningless one line abusive exchanges re Brexit on here, I thought I'd just post an opinion on what I see as the main issue and hope to get some real counter argument going. Fat chance with the usual suspects, I should have known better.

[xoggoth]

What is it telling the objective observer when Brexiters are spending so much energy yakking about Europe

Actually the only thread I've started re Brexit in recent months, unlike you. Just the sort of meaningless reply I expect from you really.

[DimPrawn]

Are you being "tongue in cheek" like you were yesterday?
Or are you just a multiple loser?

I'm planning on selling knitted bobble hats and home made jams to tourists paying in hard currencies, like Micronesian Rai Stones.

[northernladyuk]

It is for me the most powerful argument against the EU as made by Tony Benn. The lack of democracy in the European Council is the main reason I am anti EU.

[sasguru]

You're wasting your valuable time Xoggoth. Here be the remnants of stupidity. Hopefully as soon as A50 is triggered, they will all fark orf to Germany or similar.

Then we can all get on with making the predictions come true. That Britain will be the leading G7 economy for next 35 years.

Are you being "tongue in cheek" like you were yesterday?
Or are you just a multiple loser?

[sasguru]

Most arguments for or against Brexit fail to address the major issue, the lack of democracy in the EU. Some say that the EU is democratic because we can vote for the European Parliament and our elected leaders have a say in the European Council but there is much more to meaningful democracy than putting a cross on a piece of paper.

POINT 1 Voting in the EU is largely meaningless

A national election is a two way consultation. We can understand the issues involved, if we wish to do so, and make it clear, via polls etc., what policies we prefer. The parties and the candidates, via the press and public platforms, can inform us what their policies are and we can make a proper decision. We also know, when we elect a party, who the PM will be and who the senior ministers are likely to be.

When citizens vote for members of the European Parliament, they are only voting for a small proportion of its total membership who are likely to be outvoted by members elected by citizens of other nations who voted in their own interests. There is no interaction between the electorate and most of the MEPs or the parties they represent. We have no say in who fills the senior positions in the EU, including the Commission, the most powerful EU body which frames most of the laws. It all done in back-door deals with people we never elected and about whom we know little or nothing. Given the numbers, our own PM's say is minimal.

POINT 2 Centralising too many aspects of law is not productive

To be meaningful, democracy should be devolved downwards as far as is practical because different areas have different needs and problems and therefore different priorities. There are very real differences between the nations of Europe, population demographics, economic strengths and weaknesses, health issues etc. and many laws are best determined by their own governments who can take account of their priorities. There are many EU laws that are necessary and sensible but some would be better left to our own governments. Pollution is a good example, because we are one of the most crowded nations this issue is difficult to fix without measures that could impact our economy.

POINT 3 The greater the distance between government and people the more corrupt the former will be

I don't mean (yet) corruption in the third world sense of leaders using taxes to fund huge palaces but in a more subtle sense. Ego is human nature and many are likely to pursue their own agendas, sometimes with the noblest of intentions. If there is no proper oversight by those who foot the bill, money may be wasted. You can find the enormous number of EU directives online and while many make sense, others do not. One example related to when EU countries had to introduce digital television. Given the negligible amount of programs we share, was that really necessary? When the UK government introduces a dubious law or spends taxpayers' money on something questionable the press will report it and a resulting public outcry can even get it reversed. When the EU does the same we don't have a clue about it and that is likely to mean the wastage goes on.

What is it telling the objective observer when Brexiters are spending so much energy yakking about Europe when we are now sure to leave ?
They're so stupid they don't realise what their posts are showing

[VectraMan]

Most arguments for or against Brexit fail to address the major issue, the lack of democracy in the EU. Some say that the EU is democratic because we can vote for the European Parliament and our elected leaders have a say in the European Council but there is much more to meaningful democracy than putting a cross on a piece of paper.

POINT 1 Voting in the EU is largely meaningless

A national election is a two way consultation. We can understand the issues involved, if we wish to do so, and make it clear, via polls etc., what policies we prefer. The parties and the candidates, via the press and public platforms, can inform us what their policies are and we can make a proper decision. We also know, when we elect a party, who the PM will be and who the senior ministers are likely to be.

When citizens vote for members of the European Parliament, they are only voting for a small proportion of its total membership who are likely to be outvoted by members elected by citizens of other nations who voted in their own interests. There is no interaction between the electorate and most of the MEPs or the parties they represent. We have no say in who fills the senior positions in the EU, including the Commission, the most powerful EU body which frames most of the laws. It all done in back-door deals with people we never elected and about whom we know little or nothing. Given the numbers, our own PM's say is minimal.

POINT 2 Centralising too many aspects of law is not productive

To be meaningful, democracy should be devolved downwards as far as is practical because different areas have different needs and problems and therefore different priorities. There are very real differences between the nations of Europe, population demographics, economic strengths and weaknesses, health issues etc. and many laws are best determined by their own governments who can take account of their priorities. There are many EU laws that are necessary and sensible but some would be better left to our own governments. Pollution is a good example, because we are one of the most crowded nations this issue is difficult to fix without measures that could impact our economy.

POINT 3 The greater the distance between government and people the more corrupt the former will be

I don't mean (yet) corruption in the third world sense of leaders using taxes to fund huge palaces but in a more subtle sense. Ego is human nature and many are likely to pursue their own agendas, sometimes with the noblest of intentions. If there is no proper oversight by those who foot the bill, money may be wasted. You can find the enormous number of EU directives online and while many make sense, others do not. One example related to when EU countries had to introduce digital television. Given the negligible amount of programs we share, was that really necessary? When the UK government introduces a dubious law or spends taxpayers' money on something questionable the press will report it and a resulting public outcry can even get it reversed. When the EU does the same we don't have a clue about it and that is likely to mean the wastage goes on.

I guess you started writing that last June and have only just finished. Referendum's over.

[DimPrawn]

You're wasting your valuable time Xoggoth. Here be the remnants of stupidity. Hopefully as soon as A50 is triggered, they will all fark orf to Germany or similar.

Then we can all get on with making the predictions come true. That Britain will be the leading G7 economy for next 35 years.

[scooterscot]

Most arguments for or against Brexit fail to address the major issue, the lack of democracy in the UK.

POINT 1 Voting in the UK is largely meaningless

So say people in Scotland.

POINT 2 Centralising too many aspects of law is not productive

Devolution still not being delivered. Everything London centric.

POINT 3 The greater the distance between government and people the more corrupt the former will be

The House of Lords, need I say more.

FTFY

[xoggoth]

Most arguments for or against Brexit fail to address the major issue, the lack of democracy in the EU. Some say that the EU is democratic because we can vote for the European Parliament and our elected leaders have a say in the European Council but there is much more to meaningful democracy than putting a cross on a piece of paper.

POINT 1 Voting in the EU is largely meaningless

A national election is a two way consultation. We can understand the issues involved, if we wish to do so, and make it clear, via polls etc., what policies we prefer. The parties and the candidates, via the press and public platforms, can inform us what their policies are and we can make a proper decision. We also know, when we elect a party, who the PM will be and who the senior ministers are likely to be.

When citizens vote for members of the European Parliament, they are only voting for a small proportion of its total membership who are likely to be outvoted by members elected by citizens of other nations who voted in their own interests. There is no interaction between the electorate and most of the MEPs or the parties they represent. We have no say in who fills the senior positions in the EU, including the Commission, the most powerful EU body which frames most of the laws. It all done in back-door deals with people we never elected and about whom we know little or nothing. Given the numbers, our own PM's say is minimal.

POINT 2 Centralising too many aspects of law is not productive

To be meaningful, democracy should be devolved downwards as far as is practical because different areas have different needs and problems and therefore different priorities. There are very real differences between the nations of Europe, population demographics, economic strengths and weaknesses, health issues etc. and many laws are best determined by their own governments who can take account of their priorities. There are many EU laws that are necessary and sensible but some would be better left to our own governments. Pollution is a good example, because we are one of the most crowded nations this issue is difficult to fix without measures that could impact our economy.

POINT 3 The greater the distance between government and people the more corrupt the former will be

I don't mean (yet) corruption in the third world sense of leaders using taxes to fund huge palaces but in a more subtle sense. Ego is human nature and many are likely to pursue their own agendas, sometimes with the noblest of intentions. If there is no proper oversight by those who foot the bill, money may be wasted. You can find the enormous number of EU directives online and while many make sense, others do not. One example related to when EU countries had to introduce digital television. Given the negligible amount of programs we share, was that really necessary? When the UK government introduces a dubious law or spends taxpayers' money on something questionable the press will report it and a resulting public outcry can even get it reversed. When the EU does the same we don't have a clue about it and that is likely to mean the wastage goes on.