EU and democracy

[ivanava]

OK, so one more time because this is getting very tedious:

 

The way democracy works is that all people can vote for who should represent them.

 

This is done at an election.

 

Whoever gets most votes, according to the electoral system, represents all the people for that electoral period.

 

Not voting does not mean you are not represented.

 

Voting for the losing party does not mean you are not represented.

 

Thinking this is not democratic, does not make it undemocratic.

 

Repeating your self won't change the fact that the system we have isn't very good democracy, because it leave millions of people disenfranchised and without representation.

 

Democracy is a form of government in which all eligible citizens participate equally—either directly or indirectly through elected representatives—in the proposal, development, and creation of laws. And the UK system leaves millions of people without an elected representative, therefor isn't very good democracy.

[tzijlstra]

Repeating your self won't change the fact that the system we have isn't very good democracy, because it leave millions of people disenfranchised and without representation.

 

Democracy is a form of government in which all eligible citizens participate equally—either directly or indirectly through elected representatives—in the proposal, development, and creation of laws. And the UK system leaves millions of people without an elected representative, therefor isn't very good democracy.

 

Funny, because the only reason I keep having to repeat myself, is because you keep repeating yourself. (eleven times now).

 

Firstly, this topic is about the EU, try and stay on topic.

 

Secondly, whether you like the democratic virtue of a system or not does not make it undemocratic. It might have an impact on HOW democratic it is, but the version of democracy you keep going on about is not a democratic system that exists anywhere in the world, except for countries that have one party and compulsory voting, guess how democratic they are.

[ivanava]

Funny, because the only reason I keep having to repeat myself, is because you keep repeating yourself. (eleven times now).

 

Firstly, this topic is about the EU, try and stay on topic.

 

Secondly, whether you like the democratic virtue of a system or not does not make it undemocratic. It might have an impact on HOW democratic it is, but the version of democracy you keep going on about is not a democratic system that exists anywhere in the world, except for countries that have one party and compulsory voting, guess how democratic they are.

 

And the only reason I keep repeating my self is because you keep repeating your self, so maybe it would be best if we simply agree that we won't agree with each other on this topic and respect each others opinion.

[tzijlstra]

And the only reason I keep repeating my self is because you keep repeating your self, so maybe it would be best if we simply agree that we won't agree with each other on this topic and respect each others opinion.

 

Agreed. (short message)

[dosxuk]

I was under the impression they voted for a common market and not the European union.

 

No, that was the referendum. Voting to join the EU was done by your democratically elected representatives. Read the rest of the post, I didn't mention the EEC referendum once.

[Jmack]

I keep seeing people harping on about the 'undemocratic nature' of the EU.

 

Just to centralise that discussion, feel free to comment here. It might provide some insight in how the EU works which can't be a bad thing just before the elections.

 

The coming EU elections are for the EU parliament. The Parliament represents the EU citizens and supervises the European Commission which has been appointed by the member states directly - the commission proposes new rules and law (initiated by the member states either through MEPs or through the national governments). The parliament has the ability to block new laws, decide on budgets and indirectly is the place where a lot of the decision making is done: The commission rarely puts a law to the parliament unless it knows it will pass.

 

The often heard argument that the EU is "undemocratic" arises from a misunderstanding of how it works: The commission is appointed by the council which in turn is a representation of the member-states through their elected heads of state (in the UK's case David Cameron). So your vote in the UK decides who will sit in the EU council and thus who will sit in the EU commission, your vote in the EU decides who sits in the parliament.

 

Failures to democratise the council and commission further have now resulted in a president of the council (who facilitates discussion between the heads of state, Herman van Rompuy) a president of the commission (Manuel Barroso) and a president of the Parliament (Schulz).

 

Does your vote for the European Parliament matter?

 

Yes - if you want the UK to have sensible representation in Europe than having the right people in the Parliament is worth voting for. Even if they are people who want to reform/leave the parliament: As long as we are in the EU it is relevant to maintain influence.

 

---------- Post added 02-05-2014 at 11:28 ----------

 

Just to add: One of the topics regarding the EU that a lot of people are focussing on is immigration: There is a growing body of MEPs that are aware of the concerns you have, there is legislation in the pipeline to change the way free movement of people works. Not voting in the upcoming election takes away your opportunity to support such legislation.

 

This pressure for legislation isn't coming from UKIP, it is coming from the European Conservatives and Reformists and the European People's Party, the first is also represented by the Conservatives and the latter, unfortunately, isn't.

 

It is also increasingly backed by the Liberals and Socialists (LibDem and Labour).

 

Read up on the parties you can vote for and make an informed decision. Don't just waste your vote as a protest-vote for what is happening nationally, it is too valuable for that.

 

I also chuckle when people call the EU "undemocratic". It's not like were electing our MEP's in a few weeks.

[The Joker]

The Dutch EU parliamentarians recently reported that the introduction of the 2004 member states has netted 11 billion a year for the Dutch economy.

 

We see similar stories in the UK, praising how mass immigration "benefits the economy". Unfortunately, these days, sacking British workers and replacing them with cheap imported foreign labour is also of "benefit to the economy" so I take your comments with great scepticism.

 

I posted about this on another thread and your reply was that a flexible labour market was necessary in order to compete.

 

I replied to you in post 367 of the thread but I did not see any further reply from you

 

But with increase in size through new members, there is an increasing need for further reform - you know those people that want Europe to become a super-state according to the sceptics? They don't, they want Europe to become manageable and a democratic unity that the people can identify with. The only purpose the sceptics serve at the moment is to slow down the necessary reforms.

 

As noble as that idea sounds, I fear it is a waste of time, money (our money) and effort.

 

Do you really think the Eastern European and former Communist countries can ever fully integrate into the culture of Western Europe? There's about as much chance of the entire European continent becoming "a manageable and a democratic unity" as there is of the Arab world, and at least the Arab nations have the benefit of speaking the same language.

 

Europe has several different languages and cultures and up until the end of the Cold War a decade or two back, we were still technically enemies with many of them.

[tzijlstra]

We see similar stories in the UK, praising how mass immigration "benefits the economy". Unfortunately, these days, sacking British workers and replacing them with cheap imported foreign labour is also of "benefit to the economy" so I take your comments with great scepticism.

 

I posted about this on another thread and your reply was that a flexible labour market was necessary in order to compete.

 

I replied to you in post 367 of the thread but I did not see any further reply from you

 

This is about a difference of opinion regarding politics - I am not a socialist and never will be. However, I am not sure how that affects your decision voting in the EU elections? If you were to vote for Labour you would be reflecting your sentiments through your vote.

 

As noble as that idea sounds, I fear it is a waste of time, money (our money) and effort.

 

Do you really think the Eastern European and former Communist countries can ever fully integrate into the culture of Western Europe? There's about as much chance of the entire European continent becoming "a manageable and a democratic unity" as there is of the Arab world, and at least the Arab nations have the benefit of speaking the same language.

 

Europe has several different languages and cultures and up until the end of the Cold War a decade or two back, we were still technically enemies with many of them.

 

This is a gross misunderstanding of the EU's goals: I don't think it is necessary for them to integrate into the culture. Europe is a diverse and multi-cultural place and I feel a lot of that culture is better represented in a union with many different cultures than it is in states that aim for mono-culture.

The EU has been funding projects under the European Charter for Minority and Regional Languages for decades, often providing money for languages on the brink. And helping local institutions to lobby their government for recognition. This has already seen an increased recognition of the rights of Gaelic, Welsh and Cornish speakers in this country. In Fryslan it has led to us being taught Frisian at primary schools again after years of the Dutch government forbidding funding for it.

 

What the goal is however, is the creation of a single-market, something that is already well advanced and something that is providing tangible benefits as illustrated by my examples. These benefits reach here as well, but due to the rampant scepticism in England and Westminster the UK press does not seem willing to or able to report on these issues. The ONS is never asked to provide an official figure for the benefit of being part of an 11 trillion pound open market, the biggest in the world by far, but the Department of Business reckons it had created 3,5 million jobs in the UK by 2007.

 

I am not asking you to agree with my political views, I am asking you to use your democratic right to affect the decision-making processes in Europe. Too many traditional voters will stay at home, increasing the 'apathy' sound in the EUP more and more. Even if you are sceptical, of immigration, of the EU and power creep, etc. etc. etc. please do vote, contact your MEP with your concerns and ask them to explain how they are seeking to fix them. Yorkshire is (for now) represented by MEPs of every colour. You have the right to talk to all of them.

[chalga]

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/may/07/uk-may-have-no-say-eu-top-job

 

 

 

 

Juncker is the top candidate for the European People's Party (EPP), which is the dominant bloc bringing together the continent's Christian democratic parties. Because Cameron pulled out of the EPP in 2009, arguing it was made up of European federalists, no British votes will count in his favour.

 

This is the first time this has happened. Commission chiefs have always been appointed as a result of a stitch-up between EU national leaders. In what is claimed to be a more democratic process, for the first time the blocs of parties in the European elections have selected their own contenders for the commission job.

 

While accepting that he was out of the running for votes in Britain, Juncker stressed that his rival, Schulz, was also not supported there. The difference is that the Labour party belongs to the PES bloc and that votes cast for Labour in the UK automatically help Schulz's cause.

[tzijlstra]

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/may/07/uk-may-have-no-say-eu-top-job

 

 

 

 

Juncker is the top candidate for the European People's Party (EPP), which is the dominant bloc bringing together the continent's Christian democratic parties. Because Cameron pulled out of the EPP in 2009, arguing it was made up of European federalists, no British votes will count in his favour.

 

This is the first time this has happened. Commission chiefs have always been appointed as a result of a stitch-up between EU national leaders. In what is claimed to be a more democratic process, for the first time the blocs of parties in the European elections have selected their own contenders for the commission job.

 

While accepting that he was out of the running for votes in Britain, Juncker stressed that his rival, Schulz, was also not supported there. The difference is that the Labour party belongs to the PES bloc and that votes cast for Labour in the UK automatically help Schulz's cause.

 

I have to admit I hadn't even realised that this was how they solved the issue of having a democratically elected leader, but it is Cameron's bed, he made it and now he has to sleep in it. his anti EU stance is actually isolating him more and more on the international stage.

 

On a recent trip to the EU the president of China was reportedly not interested in going to the UK because of the threat of the UK leaving the EU.