Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Is the EU actually about to break up?
Comments
-
stringed theory wrote: »This interview is like the rubbish. you expect from the British tabloid press. So a journalist thinks that the EU civil service is overpaid and over privileged. I have no view on that. It proves nothing. In terms of the big issues it is almost irrelevant.
The European Union represents the democratic wish of the people as expressed through national governments and the European parliament. It is at least as democratic an institution as the government of the United States, for example, and is no more dysfunctional than the national governments from whom it derives its powers.
It will not fail. No other country has a press like the British press so devoted to spreading inflammatory and unchallenged garbage. No other country has such a nostalgia for a lost empire, a nostalgia even for world war 2 , combined with such a deep seated and deluded sense of its own importance.
Deloitte put the amount of extra civil servants that the UK would need to employ as 30,000 because of Brexit which is roughly the amount of Civil servants in Brussels.
She is from Breitbart news which is a white supremacist front and an organisation that fully backs the despot Putin and wants the destruction of the EU.
Our entire FDI economy is based on being inside the EU. All our developments in equality and liberalism come through the EU.
Do people really want us to go back to being some kind of farmyard for Britain, with the holy Catholic church dictating right and wrong and with women, children, minorities and immigrants treated as 2nd and 3rd class citizens?0 -
Apparently Putin is trying to help La Pen or whatever she's called win the French election as he did with Trump and the American election by hacking the oppositions emails and that sort of thing, Putin isn't trying to do us all a favour, he's only trying to weaken the West so he can benefit
What's the UK going to benefit from leaving the EU, immigration has been out of control in their country for decades, its a case of closing the stable door after the horse has bolted if they're leaving the EU purely because they want less immigration which seems to be the number 1 reason for many people who voted for the UK to leave0 -
Le Pen can't win, the real problems we face this year are the Netherlands with Wilders and Five Star in Italy, if we can get past those unscathed then the EU is safe, the AFD in Germany is also a risk if they manage to prevent Merkel from being re-elected.
She cant win can she not well she is only 9/4 second favorite so I would say you may be right but according to those odds you could also very well be wrong.0 -
Apparently Putin is trying to help La Pen or whatever she's called win the French election as he did with Trump and the American election by hacking the oppositions emails and that sort of thing, Putin isn't trying to do us all a favour, he's only trying to weaken the West so he can benefit
What's the UK going to benefit from leaving the EU, immigration has been out of control in their country for decades, its a case of closing the stable door after the horse has bolted if they're leaving the EU purely because they want less immigration which seems to be the number 1 reason for many people who voted for the UK to leave
They are not even going to be able to deliver on immigration now apparently. It wont be going down they will need immigrants to stay competitive after Brexit and to do the range of jobs throughout society that they have always done. It seems impossible to craft an immigration policy that doesnt hurt the economy.
Brexit is by no means a done deal yet.0 -
It seems it all boils down to the same thing as regards people voting for far right groups: immigration and refugees. I think people are sick of their neighbourhoods becoming full of Muslims and losing their national identity. This is why Brexit and Trump happened.
WHAT ???
Middle America is full of Muslims ??0 -
Advertisement
-
-
In general, I think people claim that the EU is undemocratic when the elected members of the European Council, the councils of ministers, and the European Parliament do not act in whatever way they want them to act.Wanderer78 wrote: »stringed theory wrote:This interview is like the rubbish. you expect from the British tabloid press. So a journalist thinks that the EU civil service is overpaid and over privileged. I have no view on that. It proves nothing. In terms of the big issues it is almost irrelevant. The European Union represents the democratic wish of the people as expressed through national governments and the European parliament. It is at least as democratic an institution as the government of the United States, for example, and is no more dysfunctional than the national governments from whom it derives its powers. It will not fail. No other country has a press like the British press so devoted to spreading inflammatory and unchallenged garbage. No other country has such a nostalgia for a lost empire, a nostalgia even for world war 2 , combined with such a deep seated and deluded sense of its own importance.
The eu is extremely undemocratic, the last few years has confirmed this. This could very well lead to its collapse.
Also, I know some people have a major cultural bias against the very concept of European unity. Maybe everyone should come clean about their gut instincts before deliberating on the details.0 -
Multiple poster have said this on multiple Brexit related threads.They are not even going to be able to deliver on immigration now apparently. It wont be going down they will need immigrants to stay competitive after Brexit and to do the range of jobs throughout society that they have always done. It seems impossible to craft an immigration policy that doesnt hurt the economy.
Brexit is by no means a done deal yet.
Its rubbish.
There`s simply no way back now.
The momentum is such that any politician that stands in the way of Brexit will automatically end their own political career.
That politician would be blocking the decision of a plebiscite or in other words the democratic decision of the people.
Even anti Brexit campaigners could have no faith in someone who would do that.
The best anti Brexit politicians can do is abstain from voting on parliament decisions on Brexit. Then hope a few years down the line they can make some political capital from their "protest".0 -
topmanamillion wrote: »That politician would be blocking the decision of a plebiscite or in other words the democratic decision of the people.
Lots of Irish politicians have done it and gotten away with it:
Nice II, Lisbon II, Divorce II.
We are about to have Abortion III soon.
just delay for a bit and then re-run the Referendum when it is clear that Brexit will be a disaster and the Brexiteers were lying about everything.0 -
Zubeneschamali wrote: »Lots of Irish politicians have done it and gotten away with it:
Nice II, Lisbon II, Divorce II.
We are about to have Abortion III soon.
just delay for a bit and then re-run the Referendum when it is clear that Brexit will be a disaster and the Brexiteers were lying about
everything.
Those were all good decisions. Referendums are not a great way to decide complex issues. Parameters and opinions can change, so a new referendum is not necessarily anti democratic, especially in close contests.0 -
Advertisement
-
I don't think Brexit is going to happen at all, they're all bluffing
Even when it came down to it Nigel Farage just walked away from politics after the Brexit vote because he didn't want to be held responsible for the ruination of the economy….
This whole Brexit thing is going to take a long time to play out, by the time people actually realise that it's not going to happen they'll feel a lot less pushed about it0 -
People saying that Brexit wont happen really don't understand British politics or the British outlook on the world.
A lot of British people just cant get their head around why everyone doesn't want to be British and why all those countries wanted to leave the empire.
Its a completely different outlook to Ireland where we are happy to be part of the collective and work as part of the EU.
The UK has always rowed against that from using their veto regularly to rejecting the Euro.0 -
topmanamillion wrote: »People saying that Brexit wont happen really don't understand British politics or the British outlook on the world.
A lot of British people just cant get their head around why everyone doesn't want to be British and why all those countries wanted to leave the empire.
Its a completely different outlook to Ireland where we are happy to be part of the collective and work as part of the EU.
The UK has always rowed against that from using their veto regularly to rejecting the Euro.
I totally agree with you but I think that hopefully Theresa May and the other MP's will manage to pull the wool over the eyes of the 52% of the people who voted to leave the EU, when/if it doesn't happen they'll all just blame eachother0 -
I totally agree with you but I think that hopefully Theresa May and the other MP's will manage to pull the wool over the eyes of the 52% of the people who voted to leave the EU, when/if it doesn't happen they'll all just blame eachother
Fair enough but I just cant see as scenario where its feasible.
All the rumblings from the EU heads have been they went a fast Brexit. Once article 50 is triggered in March and it will be triggered because of the parliamentary vote, they will be past the point of return regardless of the deal they negotiate.
Anyway, I think it would be untenable for Britain to return to the EU after all this. They`d be half in and half out.
Who`s to say they wouldn't turn around in 5 years time and have another Brexit over some perceived slight at EU level.
There`s also the precedent the likes of France, Holland and Italy with their large Euro sceptic contingent could take from it.
"Don't fancy implementing the latest EU directive? Simply vote out of the EU and wait for them to take you back."0 -
topmanamillion wrote: »Who`s to say they wouldn't turn around in 5 years time and have another Brexit over some perceived slight at EU level.
Could happen, but equally I think it is more than possible they will be applying for re-entry in 10 years time.
But right now, today, they are headed for a cliff. Just because a non-binding referendum chose that path doesn't mean they won't swerve at the last minute when the drop is visible.0 -
Those were all good decisions. Referendums are not a great way to decide complex issues. Parameters and opinions can change, so a new referendum is not necessarily anti democratic, especially in close contests.
We have a tradition in Ireland of one side lying through their teeth on referendum posters to push their own agenda. They purposefully try to confuse the electorate with nonsensical arguments, emotive language and anecdotal stories.
Combined with people who just love to protest vote, and a majority who don't give a sh*te either way, you see why the government has to run referenda multiple times.
I see the forced abortions and EU army we'd all be conscripted into if Lisbon passed still hasn't come about:rolleyes:0 -
Zubeneschamali wrote: »Could happen, but equally I think it is more than possible they will be applying for re-entry in 10 years time.
But right now, today, they are headed for a cliff. Just because a non-binding referendum chose that path doesn't mean they won't swerve at the last minute when the drop is visible.
I don't buy this doomsday scenario. I think its fanciful thinking.
The culture of Britain is it will not return to the EU with a begging bowl.
There is no doubt the UK economy will slump due to the uncertainty surrounding a post Brexit environment and they have stunted their future growth.
However, they are the 5th largest economy in the world so they are capable of absorbing all that.0 -
We have a tradition in Ireland of one side lying through their teeth on referendum posters to push their own agenda. They purposefully try to confuse the electorate with nonsensical arguments, emotive language and anecdotal stories.
Combined with people who just love to protest vote, and a majority who don't give a sh*te either way, you see why the government has to run referenda multiple times.
But this is exactly what happened during the Brexit referendum. Lies and nonsense from the Brexit side, apathy from May and Corbyn, UKIP win with some tiny percentage of the vote.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 13692
Mod note:
KyussBeeshope unbanned0 -
topmanamillion wrote: »I don't buy this doomsday scenario. I think its fanciful thinking.
The culture of Britain is it will not return to the EU with a begging bowl.
There is no doubt the UK economy will slump due to the uncertainty surrounding a post Brexit environment and they have stunted their future growth.
However, they are the 5th largest economy in the world so they are capable of absorbing all that.
No matter how big a given country's economy is, tearing up the trade deal that you have in place with the biggest trade bloc the world has ever seen and only expecting a slump in the economy is a bit of fanciful thinking in itself!
Would it be unfair to ask for a referendum in the UK to decide whether or not to go through with Brexit when the final deal however good or bad it is has been drawn up, only seems fair0 -
Advertisement
-
Would it be unfair to ask for a referendum in the UK to decide whether or not to go through with Brexit when the final deal however good or bad it is has been drawn up, only seems fair
That's not how it works. Once A50 is triggered, that's it. They have 2 years to pack their bags and go. Negotiating a trade deal is a separate affair and will likely take far longer than two years if previous trade deals are anything to go by. A50 is irreversible it seems (pending a court challenge).0 -
Hmm. Restoring my post from earlier, assuming that's ok:
That doesn't make something democratic.Sam Russell wrote: »The EU is democratic in that it stands on the shoulders of the democratic Governments that give it its legitimacy.
Democratic governments can agree to a union, which when implemented, has a severe democratic deficit and traps many members into the union (under threat of massive economic damage).
The union can be undemocratic, even if the initial decision to implement it was made democratically.0 -
Democratic governments can agree to a union, which when implemented, has a severe democratic deficit and traps many members into the union (under threat of massive economic damage).
The union can be undemocratic, even if the initial decision to implement it was made democratically.
Yes, but it is not undemocratic. The European Union is about a large body of law that is obeyed in the great majority of cases, or at least to a sufficient extent to make for a functioning Union, And every one of these laws has been voted on and could be repealed. It is just as democratic as any national parliament, in any large multicultural country. Can you explain why this isn't so?
The fact that one may ignore the legislative process, or pretend it doesn't exist, or simply not recognize the legitimacy of pan European majorities as a matter of principle is a personal choice or prejudice.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 19528
KyussBeeshop wrote: »Hmm. Restoring my post from earlier, assuming that's ok:
That doesn't make something democratic.
Democratic governments can agree to a union, which when implemented, has a severe democratic deficit and traps many members into the union (under threat of massive economic damage).
The union can be undemocratic, even if the initial decision to implement it was made democratically.
The EU gets its democratic credentials from its members. Not all its members are that democratic. For example, the UK Government is run by a party that only got 37% of the popular vote, and only 1 MP in Scotland, none in NI, both of which voted to remain. So how democratic is that?
The EU is only as democratic as its member states. The UK has not been very well disposed towards the EU since it joined, demanding more and more opt-outs. It has also been governed by parties that have failed to get more than 50% of the popular vote for much of that time.0 -
The EU is more than just its laws and legislature, it's made up of many different institutions as well as formal plus informal political groups, not to mention (for many of its countries) the Euro.stringed theory wrote: »Yes, but it is not undemocratic. The European Union is about a large body of law that is obeyed in the great majority of cases, or at least to a sufficient extent to make for a functioning Union, And every one of these laws has been voted on and could be repealed. It is just as democratic as any national parliament, in any large multicultural country. Can you explain why this isn't so?
The fact that one may ignore the legislative process, or pretend it doesn't exist, or simply not recognize the legitimacy of pan European majorities as a matter of principle is a personal choice or prejudice.
You can't just decide to revoke these institutions/groups power. No country can just repeal the Euro. That was a decision that once it was made, carries with it the threat of massive economic disruption, if you go back on it.
Effectively, now that they have been implemented, many of these institutions and structures within the EU, don't have much of a connection to the more democratically controlled parts of the EU.
The way the politics of EU works at a supra-national level, in deciding how to implement policy in response to the economic crisis, does not work in the way that it would in a national parliament either - as the need for unanimous agreement for some pan-European policies, grants countries an effective veto - allowing them to block necessary structural reforms at an EU level, which can hold many EU countries down, while allowing others to take advantage of the imbalance/disruption to boost their own relative power within the EU (the structure of the Euro is what usually takes the blame for the massive imbalance/disruption).
Effectively, individual countries can veto the will of the majority of EU governments and people. That's far from democratic.
We see this in the response to the economic crisis, and e.g. the significant power this grants Germany, in being able to narrow the scope of policy options we can undertake, to try and solve (or not solve...) the crisis.
One of the most frequently cited principles of democracy is that of sovereignty, and through the EU, member states have lost a significant degree of sovereign control over their own countries - some of this sovereignty has been 'pooled' (don't like that term myself) with democratic control at an EU level - some of it has been granted to EU institutions which have a poor connection to democratic control - and some of that sovereign control is just gone, e.g. policy options that used to exist at a national level, and no longer exist at all now due to the need for unanimous agreement at an EU level, and likely won't exist in the future without an EU-level government.
All of these are severe problems with the EU, that demonstrate an enormous lack of democratic control where it matters the most right now (principally our response to the economic crisis), and which frankly blasts a hole in the EU's democratic credentials.
All of these are principal reasons why the EU is slowly on the path to breaking up - it may take a very long time, but on this path it's more a matter of 'when' not 'if' - it's possible the EU may change path and implement genuine reform, though the last decade makes that look unlikely.0 -
If the majority of EU member states voted to introduce a policy that was disastrous for Ireland, and we didn't have the ability to veto such a policy, would you be arguing in favour of such a decision on the grounds that it was "democratic"? Or would you hand-carve a different definition of "democratic" in order to condemn such a move?KyussBeeshop wrote: »Effectively, individual countries can veto the will of the majority of EU governments and people. That's far from democratic.
The criticism of the EU on the grounds of being "undemocratic" is trite and silly. It's a supranational organisation; its members are nation-states who have agreed mechanisms for advancing their shared interests. If anything, it's way more democratic than any other such organisation, in that it has a directly-elected parliament.One of the most frequently cited principles of democracy is that of sovereignty, and through the EU, member states have lost a significant degree of sovereign control over their own countries - some of this sovereignty has been 'pooled' (don't like that term myself) with democratic control at an EU level...
You seem to use the term "democracy" or "democratic" in an extremely fungible way, to suit whatever argument you're trying to make at the time.
What's wrong with the term "pooled sovereignty"? It's an accurate description. Sovereignty isn't ceded; that would imply that a country has relinquished all control over policy.
What term would you use instead of "pooled", and why?0 -
KyussBeeshop wrote: »The EU is more than just its laws and legislature, it's made up of many different institutions as well as formal plus informal political groups, not to mention (for many of its countries) the Euro.
You can't just decide to revoke these institutions/groups power. No country can just repeal the Euro. That was a decision that once it was made, carries with it the threat of massive economic disruption, if you go back on it.
Effectively, now that they have been implemented, many of these institutions and structures within the EU, don't have much of a connection to the more democratically controlled parts of the EU.
The way the politics of EU works at a supra-national level, in deciding how to implement policy in response to the economic crisis, does not work in the way that it would in a national parliament either - as the need for unanimous agreement for some pan-European policies, grants countries an effective veto - allowing them to block necessary structural reforms at an EU level, which can hold many EU countries down, while allowing others to take advantage of the imbalance/disruption to boost their own relative power within the EU (the structure of the Euro is what usually takes the blame for the massive imbalance/disruption).
Effectively, individual countries can veto the will of the majority of EU governments and people. That's far from democratic.
We see this in the response to the economic crisis, and e.g. the significant power this grants Germany, in being able to narrow the scope of policy options we can undertake, to try and solve (or not solve...) the crisis.
One of the most frequently cited principles of democracy is that of sovereignty, and through the EU, member states have lost a significant degree of sovereign control over their own countries - some of this sovereignty has been 'pooled' (don't like that term myself) with democratic control at an EU level - some of it has been granted to EU institutions which have a poor connection to democratic control - and some of that sovereign control is just gone, e.g. policy options that used to exist at a national level, and no longer exist at all now due to the need for unanimous agreement at an EU level, and likely won't exist in the future without an EU-level government.
All of these are severe problems with the EU, that demonstrate an enormous lack of democratic control where it matters the most right now (principally our response to the economic crisis), and which frankly blasts a hole in the EU's democratic credentials.
All of these are principal reasons why the EU is slowly on the path to breaking up - it may take a very long time, but on this path it's more a matter of 'when' not 'if' - it's possible the EU may change path and implement genuine reform, though the last decade makes that look unlikely.
It sounds like you're arguing for removal of national veto's while at the same time saying that its a bad thing that national governments can't set their own policies? Isn't that a bit contradictory?
When you say the response to the economic crisis blasts a hole in the EU's democratic credentials what exactly do you mean?
If you mean "German imposed austerity" which is what people generally mean when they talk about the EU's "democratic deficit", how many times does it need to be said; the Eurozone is not a transfer union. It never has been and unless the 27 nations agree to give up setting their own taxation and fiscal policies, it never will be.
What's more, every country in the Eurozone knew well in advance that this was the case. If they decided to erode their own competiveness while countries like Germany were practicing wage restraint that is their own fault.
Fixing the mess that is the southern European economies will take more than just a debt write off or stimulus spending. Those economies, especially Greece's are fundamentally broken. Give them a chance and they'll repeat the same mistakes and end up in the exact same situation in a few decades because it's politically and socially easier than dealing with the actual problem. That's true whether they're in the EU or not, Euro or not.
Part of the problem is the EU but only so far as because for as long as the EU exists people will expect it to be a lender of last resort, no matter if it is or not. They look to the EU to save them from a mess of their own making and then blame the EU for not throwing good taxpayer money after bad. All the while never actually bothering to make the necessary reforms.0 -
We have a tradition in Ireland of one side lying through their teeth on referendum posters to push their own agenda. They purposefully try to confuse the electorate with nonsensical arguments, emotive language and anecdotal stories.
Combined with people who just love to protest vote, and a majority who don't give a sh*te either way, you see why the government has to run referenda multiple times.
I see the forced abortions and EU army we'd all be conscripted into if Lisbon passed still hasn't come about:rolleyes:
Nothing unique to Ireland about that! Brexit and the US Presidental Elections did it on an even more spectacular level. At least Ireland has a lot of checks and balances built into broadcast election coverage and has an actual referendum commission to attempt to ensure everyone plays fair. It doesn't always work but I think we do have more experience than the UK has of running referenda.0 -
Your question is based on the EU using a different system, and the problem is that most politically practical systems short of a national EU government, introduce some level of democratic deficits.oscarBravo wrote: »If the majority of EU member states voted to introduce a policy that was disastrous for Ireland, and we didn't have the ability to veto such a policy, would you be arguing in favour of such a decision on the grounds that it was "democratic"? Or would you hand-carve a different definition of "democratic" in order to condemn such a move?
The criticism of the EU on the grounds of being "undemocratic" is trite and silly. It's a supranational organisation; its members are nation-states who have agreed mechanisms for advancing their shared interests. If anything, it's way more democratic than any other such organisation, in that it has a directly-elected parliament.
Supranational organizations, are usually less democratic in their construction, than national governments - and I outlined many of the problems with the structure of the EU, beyond what you quoted.
National governments are far superior, democratically, than supranational organizations - wouldn't you agree?
Please quote an example, you don't back up this accusation. Do you disagree that sovereignty is an important and frequently cited part of democracy? If you don't, it's not clear what you're applying this accusation to.oscarBravo wrote: »You seem to use the term "democracy" or "democratic" in an extremely fungible way, to suit whatever argument you're trying to make at the time.
I think the term 'pooled sovereignty' can be a valid term for many of the areas of policymaking that the EU parliament has control over, but that in some areas it is not a valid term and masks the loss of control over policy, particularly in the areas I pointed out where necessary reform of EU policy is subject to veto's, and where areas of sovereign control have been handed over to institutions with a poor connection to democratic control.oscarBravo wrote: »What's wrong with the term "pooled sovereignty"? It's an accurate description. Sovereignty isn't ceded; that would imply that a country has relinquished all control over policy.
What term would you use instead of "pooled", and why?
Countries don't have to completely cede sovereign control over an area of policymaking, for that to have a severely negative effect on a countries democratic decision making either, as giving up partial control can have very complicated and unexpected restrictive effects on a countries sovereign control as time passes.
For example, joining the Euro and the EU level response to the economic crisis, has led to an enormous loss of control over the range of possible policy options we could take, in response to the economic crisis - far beyond what anyone imagined when we agreed to the single currency.
This was completely masked in the good times, when there was economic prosperity (built on unsound foundations - many of which were the unsound foundations of the Euro) - and the loss of democratic control only became apparent when crisis hit and as the crisis developed.0 -
Advertisement
-
I point out national veto's, and I point out that short of a national EU government there will be a democratic deficit - but I'm not arguing for or against either of those things, only establishing that there is a democratic deficit.sameoldname wrote: »It sounds like you're arguing for removal of national veto's while at the same time saying that its a bad thing that national governments can't set their own policies? Isn't that a bit contradictory?
When you say the response to the economic crisis blasts a hole in the EU's democratic credentials what exactly do you mean?
If you mean "German imposed austerity" which is what people generally mean when they talk about the EU's "democratic deficit", how many times does it need to be said; the Eurozone is not a transfer union. It never has been and unless the 27 nations agree to give up setting their own taxation and fiscal policies, it never will be.
What's more, every country in the Eurozone knew well in advance that this was the case. If they decided to erode their own competiveness while countries like Germany were practicing wage restraint that is their own fault.
Fixing the mess that is the southern European economies will take more than just a debt write off or stimulus spending. Those economies, especially Greece's are fundamentally broken. Give them a chance and they'll repeat the same mistakes and end up in the exact same situation in a few decades because it's politically and socially easier than dealing with the actual problem. That's true whether they're in the EU or not, Euro or not.
Part of the problem is the EU but only so far as because for as long as the EU exists people will expect it to be a lender of last resort, no matter if it is or not. They look to the EU to save them from a mess of their own making and then blame the EU for not throwing good taxpayer money after bad. All the while never actually bothering to make the necessary reforms.
The response to the economic crisis, shows that individual countries are able to effectively veto many of the necessary policy options that are required to resolve the crisis - thus severely limiting the range of policy options for resolving the crisis, especially compared to what countries could do prior to the Euro - and that this effectively creates an undemocratic structure within the EU, that has an enormously negative effect on many EU countries (and to the benefit of others, in terms of relative power).
EU-imposed austerity automatically means countries losing a significant degree of fiscal/taxation control, and I don't think turning the EU into a transfer zone is the only recovery policy.
See, your post actually acknowledges many of the fundamental structural flaws within the Euro, which is good - but also seems to imply that countries negatively affected by these flaws, just have to lump-it/put-up-with-it?
That kind of attitude seems prevalent in politics and discussion/defence of the EU, which is causing political division in EU nations and is dividing Europe - and which is likely to contribute to the EU's future breakup, unless it changes.
I agree that countries need individual reform too - but we are talking about democratic flaws within EU level institutions here.0 -
I'm going to take issue in turn with the term "democratic deficit" - I'll come back to this in a bit.KyussBeeshop wrote: »Your question is based on the EU using a different system, and the problem is that most politically practical systems short of a national EU government, introduce some level of democratic deficits.
Yes. National governments, by their nature, govern populations. Supranational organisations, by theirs, govern countries. Democracy - in the sense of individuals having a say in the running of things - is less a feature in the latter than in the former.Supranational organizations, are usually less democratic in their construction, than national governments...
Is that a bad thing? It depends on your perspective. I've always had an issue with the idea that "less democratic" is a synonym for "worse" - it sometimes is, and it sometimes isn't. Would my business be better run as a democracy, for example? I doubt it.
If you insist on conflating "democratic" with "superior", then I guess so. By that same argument, a commune where every single decision is put to a plenary vote is "superior" to national government, but that's not necessarily an argument for replacing national governments with daily referendums.National governments are far superior, democratically, than supranational organizations - wouldn't you agree?
I can't honestly say that I've ever heard sovereignty cited as an important part of democracy. That's not to say that it isn't; it's just that I see sovereignty and democracy as orthogonal. You can have sovereignty without democracy (cf monarchies); you can have democracy without sovereignty (cf residents' associations).Do you disagree that sovereignty is an important and frequently cited part of democracy?
With all due respect, none of that is an argument against the definition of pooled sovereignty.I think the term 'pooled sovereignty' can be a valid term for many of the areas of policymaking that the EU parliament has control over, but that in some areas it is not a valid term and masks the loss of control over policy, particularly in the areas I pointed out where necessary reform of EU policy is subject to veto's, and where areas of sovereign control have been handed over to institutions with a poor connection to democratic control.
If the member states agree that they no longer get to act as they see fit in some policy areas, and instead agree to act only in ways that have been agreed with the other member states according to pre-determined rules, then that's pooled sovereignty. No member state is relinquishing all control over policy; each member still has a say in policy. Sure, that sometimes means that states don't get to do things the way they would like, but that's the nature of the beast.
If you're trying to argue that the existence of vetoes negates the concept of pooled sovereignty, I'm afraid you're going to have to make that argument a lot more cogently.
Yes. Are you somehow under the impression that you can have all the benefits of the world's largest and most tightly-integrated trading bloc without any associated costs? Because, if so, you are Theresa May and I claim my five guineas.Countries don't have to completely cede sovereign control over an area of policymaking, for that to have a severely negative effect on a countries democratic decision making either, as giving up partial control can have very complicated and unexpected restrictive effects on a countries sovereign control as time passes.
I would argue that it led to a moderate loss of control over the range of possible policy options, and that none of that loss was unforeseen.For example, joining the Euro and the EU level response to the economic crisis, has led to an enormous loss of control over the range of possible policy options we could take, in response to the economic crisis - far beyond what anyone imagined when we agreed to the single currency.
If you disagree, please list the policy options we lost control of, and explain why their loss was unexpected at the time of monetary union.0 -
oscarBravo wrote: »I'm going to take issue in turn with the term "democratic deficit" - I'll come back to this in a bit.
I forgot to come back to it.
"Democratic deficit" is one of those terms that sounds catchy, but makes relatively little sense on the face of it. The word "deficit" implies a net loss; it conjures up a mental image of some democracy being added, but a larger quantity being subtracted, leading to a net deficit.
Now, I'm not aware of the SI unit for democracy; nor have I seen any charts plotting the democratic surplus/deficit over time. So the phrase seems to simply boil down to "less democratic than whatever arbitrary standard I've chosen to apply" - which is problematic on at least two levels: it still suggests a metric for democracy, and it's really quite subjective.
When people talk about the EU having a "democratic deficit", they seem to mean that it is theoretically possible that the people of the EU could have more of a say in its day-to-day running. This is a truism, in the same way that NATO could be said to have a democratic deficit for the same reason (and yet, nobody ever seems to say that).
That said, I've seen very few actual arguments for how it could be "improved" (I'm still wary of conflating "more democratic" with "automatically better") that don't have compelling counter-arguments. For example: it has been suggested that the Commission is undemocratic, and should be directly elected by the voters of the respective member states. The argument against this is self-evident: a Commissioner's job is not to represent his or her member state, but the interests of the Union as a whole. Elected Commissioners would be utterly at odds with their role.
In summary: if you're going to argue about democratic deficits, I think there's an onus on you to demonstrate convincingly that "more democratic" is automatically better.0 -
Voters will always attack their own gvt for necessary changes that have to occur. That is only natural. What we all need to do is accept that the way we live our lives is not good for us. What i mean by that is i don't hold the Irish gov responsible for climate change but i do expect European gvt's to make decisions that might inconvenience me if it is the public good or planetary necessity. This is an area we cannot possible control but at an EU level we have real power collectively as Europeans. Now that is just one area plenty of other areas that certainly fall within our control.0
-
We're not talking about running businesses though - we're talking about running countries - and democratically elected governments, in national parliaments, with representatives exercising strong sovereign rule over a country (thus giving citizens a strong say over most aspects of society/politics/economics), is the form of democracy which is the most highly regarded around the world.oscarBravo wrote: »Yes. National governments, by their nature, govern populations. Supranational organisations, by theirs, govern countries. Democracy - in the sense of individuals having a say in the running of things - is less a feature in the latter than in the former.
Is that a bad thing? It depends on your perspective. I've always had an issue with the idea that "less democratic" is a synonym for "worse" - it sometimes is, and it sometimes isn't. Would my business be better run as a democracy, for example? I doubt it.
If you insist on conflating "democratic" with "superior", then I guess so. By that same argument, a commune where every single decision is put to a plenary vote is "superior" to national government, but that's not necessarily an argument for replacing national governments with daily referendums.
The supranational structure of the EU, as described in my previous posts, leads to a situation where national representatives have passed partial control over areas of policymaking to the supranational EU, with some areas maintaining strong democratic credentials (e.g. through the EU parliament), and other areas suffering a loss of democratic credentials (whether through flawed EU institutions needing reform, and that being blocked by national veto's - or control being given to institutions which have a poor connection to areas of democratic control - both as described in previous posts).
The end result, is that the citizens of the EU, at both a national and EU-wide level, do not have as much of a say over their society/politics/economics in a supranational system, as they would have in a fully sovereign national government.
On its face, this doesn't necessarily have to be a bad thing either, it could be made tolerable with the very long-term goal of an EU level government - but the structures within the EU (particularly the Euro) are so flawed, that the democratic deficit here has grown so large, and is causing so much economic disruption, that for some nations it's increasingly intolerable/unacceptable - and risks breaking the EU apart before such a long term goal can be reached.
I'm not getting diverted into discussion of direct democracy, or worker democracy within businesses. You accused me of changing the definition of democracy to suit my argument earlier (without citing anything I said), yet you are now stretching the definition of democracy to different extremes here, when I have not said a word about direct democracy or worker democracy.
I actually said pooled sovereignty can be a valid term depending on what it is applied to - the problem I have with it, is that it can be over-applied, and I described the areas where I do not view it as a suitable term.oscarBravo wrote: »With all due respect, none of that is an argument against the definition of pooled sovereignty.
If the member states agree that they no longer get to act as they see fit in some policy areas, and instead agree to act only in ways that have been agreed with the other member states according to pre-determined rules, then that's pooled sovereignty. No member state is relinquishing all control over policy; each member still has a say in policy. Sure, that sometimes means that states don't get to do things the way they would like, but that's the nature of the beast.
If you're trying to argue that the existence of vetoes negates the concept of pooled sovereignty, I'm afraid you're going to have to make that argument a lot more cogently.
The definition you provide of pooled sovereignty, shows exactly why I view it as a flawed term, as it is applied in an overly broad manner, and implies that countries still have a say in certain matters - when, as I described in previous posts, the reality of how supranational institutions/structures are constructed, greatly curtails the say of nation states (and citizens), over certain areas of policymaking (depending on the structures of the supranational organization).
If you want to claim that taking a previously sovereign level of control, and granting that control to a supra-national organization, where there will be a near-guaranteed veto from a minority, counts as each member state still having a say in policy, then you will need a better argument for justifying such a broad application of the term 'pooled sovereignty'.
So your statement agrees that countries can suffer "unexpected restrictive effects on [...] sovereign control as time passes".oscarBravo wrote: »Yes. Are you somehow under the impression that you can have all the benefits of the world's largest and most tightly-integrated trading bloc without any associated costs? Because, if so, you are Theresa May and I claim my five guineas.
If you agree with that, particularly the unexpected part, that's in conflict with what you say below:
If you think that, pre-crisis, it was widely known in EU circles, that the Euro would create such catastrophic imbalances across the EU, and lead to a crisis on the scale that we have seen in the past decade, and the imposition of austerity etc. - and the subsequent erosion of sovereign control in member states - then you will need to provide examples of that.oscarBravo wrote: »I would argue that it led to a moderate loss of control over the range of possible policy options, and that none of that loss was unforeseen.
If you disagree, please list the policy options we lost control of, and explain why their loss was unexpected at the time of monetary union.
Outside of a very small number of people calling out the flaws in the structure of the Euro over a couple of decades prior to the crisis, the path the EU took when the crisis hit (including the erosion of sovereign control), was not generally expected among those in influence within the EU.0 -
This really is nitpicking over my application of the term - I have not simply used the term 'democratic deficit' on its own as the basis of my arguments, I have specifically described the ways in which the EU is structured that I have a problem with, and which I view as creating a loss of democratic control.oscarBravo wrote: »I forgot to come back to it.
"Democratic deficit" is one of those terms that sounds catchy, but makes relatively little sense on the face of it. The word "deficit" implies a net loss; it conjures up a mental image of some democracy being added, but a larger quantity being subtracted, leading to a net deficit.
Now, I'm not aware of the SI unit for democracy; nor have I seen any charts plotting the democratic surplus/deficit over time. So the phrase seems to simply boil down to "less democratic than whatever arbitrary standard I've chosen to apply" - which is problematic on at least two levels: it still suggests a metric for democracy, and it's really quite subjective.
When people talk about the EU having a "democratic deficit", they seem to mean that it is theoretically possible that the people of the EU could have more of a say in its day-to-day running. This is a truism, in the same way that NATO could be said to have a democratic deficit for the same reason (and yet, nobody ever seems to say that).
That said, I've seen very few actual arguments for how it could be "improved" (I'm still wary of conflating "more democratic" with "automatically better") that don't have compelling counter-arguments. For example: it has been suggested that the Commission is undemocratic, and should be directly elected by the voters of the respective member states. The argument against this is self-evident: a Commissioner's job is not to represent his or her member state, but the interests of the Union as a whole. Elected Commissioners would be utterly at odds with their role.
In summary: if you're going to argue about democratic deficits, I think there's an onus on you to demonstrate convincingly that "more democratic" is automatically better.0 -
Advertisement
-
But we're not just talking about running countries; we're talking about running most of a continent.KyussBeeshop wrote: »We're not talking about running businesses though - we're talking about running countries - and democratically elected governments, in national parliaments, with representatives exercising strong sovereign rule over a country (thus giving citizens a strong say over most aspects of society/politics/economics), is the form of democracy which is the most highly regarded around the world.
I'll stipulate, for the sake of argument, that representative democracy is the most suitable way to run a country. To argue that that means it's automatically the most suitable way to run a continent is, to put it kindly, a logical fallacy.
Emotive language like "suffering a loss of democratic credentials" aside (what does that even mean?): yes. When you join up as a member of a larger body, you no longer have the same degree of autonomy you once had. That's a given.The supranational structure of the EU, as described in my previous posts, leads to a situation where national representatives have passed partial control over areas of policymaking to the supranational EU, with some areas maintaining strong democratic credentials (e.g. through the EU parliament), and other areas suffering a loss of democratic credentials (whether through flawed EU institutions needing reform, and that being blocked by national veto's - or control being given to institutions which have a poor connection to areas of democratic control - both as described in previous posts).
The end result, is that the citizens of the EU, at both a national and EU-wide level, do not have as much of a say over their society/politics/economics in a supranational system, as they would have in a fully sovereign national government.
If you as a worker join a trade union, you no longer have as much say over your relationship with your employer as you once had. You have ceded much of your sovereignty over industrial relations to the union, in return for the collective bargaining strength that it offers. More accurately, you've pooled your sovereignty, because you get to vote on the union's actions. Those votes won't always go your way, and may in fact be actively harmful to you, but that's the price of admission.
You seem to have a very one-size-fits-all approach to governance: it will be fine to abolish national governments and replace them with a single democratically-elected EU government, because then it's the sort of "democracy" you're comfortable with.On its face, this doesn't necessarily have to be a bad thing either, it could be made tolerable with the very long-term goal of an EU level government - but the structures within the EU (particularly the Euro) are so flawed, that the democratic deficit here has grown so large, and is causing so much economic disruption, that for some nations it's increasingly intolerable/unacceptable - and risks breaking the EU apart before such a long term goal can be reached.
Democracy means exactly one thing to me: rule by the people. That's it.I'm not getting diverted into discussion of direct democracy, or worker democracy within businesses. You accused me of changing the definition of democracy to suit my argument earlier (without citing anything I said), yet you are now stretching the definition of democracy to different extremes here, when I have not said a word about direct democracy or worker democracy.
You're arguing that it's a flawed term, because you have a problem with some of its outcomes. That's a sideways argument.I actually said pooled sovereignty can be a valid term depending on what it is applied to - the problem I have with it, is that it can be over-applied, and I described the areas where I do not view it as a suitable term.
The definition you provide of pooled sovereignty, shows exactly why I view it as a flawed term, as it is applied in an overly broad manner, and implies that countries still have a say in certain matters - when, as I described in previous posts, the reality of how supranational institutions/structures are constructed, greatly curtails the say of nation states (and citizens), over certain areas of policymaking (depending on the structures of the supranational organization).
You're doing what all critics of the EU do, when it suits their argument: you're casting the Union as if it was a completely distinct body from the member states.If you want to claim that taking a previously sovereign level of control, and granting that control to a supra-national organization, where there will be a near-guaranteed veto from a minority, counts as each member state still having a say in policy, then you will need a better argument for justifying such a broad application of the term 'pooled sovereignty'.
The members don't "grant control" to the EU; the member states are the EU. They don't cede sovereignty to an independent third party; they pool sovereignty among themselves through agreed mechanisms.
The term "pooled sovereignty" is entirely accurate. Your case for disagreeing with it is weak, I'm afraid.
You got me: I missed the "unexpected" part.So your statement agrees that countries can suffer "unexpected restrictive effects on [...] sovereign control as time passes".
If you agree with that, particularly the unexpected part, that's in conflict with what you say below:
Nice swerve. You claimed that there was an unforeseen loss of policy controls. Which policy controls did we unexpectedly lose?If you think that, pre-crisis, it was widely known in EU circles, that the Euro would create such catastrophic imbalances across the EU, and lead to a crisis on the scale that we have seen in the past decade, and the imposition of austerity etc. - and the subsequent erosion of sovereign control in member states - then you will need to provide examples of that.
Unless you can demonstrate that no national government (your ideal model for democracy) has ever taken an unexpected path in response to a crisis, It's hard to see what your point is.Outside of a very small number of people calling out the flaws in the structure of the Euro over a couple of decades prior to the crisis, the path the EU took when the crisis hit (including the erosion of sovereign control), was not generally expected among those in influence within the EU.
And I've described how any supra-national agreement of necessity requires a loss of democratic control.KyussBeeshop wrote: »This really is nitpicking over my application of the term - I have not simply used the term 'democratic deficit' on its own as the basis of my arguments, I have specifically described the ways in which the EU is structured that I have a problem with, and which I view as creating a loss of democratic control.
Ireland is a signatory to the Ottawa Treaty, which means we can no longer democratically decide to include landmines in our military arsenal. Granted, nobody wants us to have landmines: but that doesn't change the fact that we signed away our right to have them.
More topically, as a signatory to the Geneva Convention, we are obliged to take in refugees. Some people are deeply unhappy about this, but it doesn't matter: even if a majority of the population don't want to take in refugees, we still have to take them in. That's a loss of democratic control.
So, yes: our EU membership means that we've lost some democratic control. That's the price of admission. You don't get to point to the things you want, while bitching about the things you don't - that way Brexit lies.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 19528
Surely the best example of a super-national body that is undemocratic is the United Nations. - there is no semblance of democracy there.
They set up the International Criminal Court - which many nations accept its jurisdiction - most notably the USA does not. Perhaps they were unhappy to accept its potential judgement on their many wars and escapades across the world. It would never do for the most powerful country in the world to be judged a war criminal. How would Guantanamo be judged?0 -
Sam Russell wrote: »Surely the best example of a super-national body that is undemocratic is the United Nations. - there is no semblance of democracy there.
They set up the International Criminal Court - which many nations accept its jurisdiction - most notably the USA does not. Perhaps they were unhappy to accept its potential judgement on their many wars and escapades across the world. It would never do for the most powerful country in the world to be judged a war criminal. How would Guantanamo be judged?
The United Nations is abused by the likes of Saudi Arabia and multiple nations get off for malpractice. Nobody their to improve the standards of that international body.0 -
It is the democratic standard, that the EU will be measured up against. The EU achieves this standard, in part, through the EU parliament - but as I described, it is severely lacking in other areas.oscarBravo wrote: »But we're not just talking about running countries; we're talking about running most of a continent.
I'll stipulate, for the sake of argument, that representative democracy is the most suitable way to run a country. To argue that that means it's automatically the most suitable way to run a continent is, to put it kindly, a logical fallacy.
You're asking that question for rhetorical effect, because you can see that it is answered in the bolded part that you have quoted.oscarBravo wrote: »
Emotive language like "suffering a loss of democratic credentials" aside (what does that even mean?):KyussBeeshop wrote:The supranational structure of the EU, as described in my previous posts, leads to a situation where national representatives have passed partial control over areas of policymaking to the supranational EU, with some areas maintaining strong democratic credentials (e.g. through the EU parliament), and other areas suffering a loss of democratic credentials (whether through flawed EU institutions needing reform, and that being blocked by national veto's - or control being given to institutions which have a poor connection to areas of democratic control - both as described in previous posts).
Except I am not talking about citizens of an individual member state, I am saying that citizens collectively - through all member states - have less of a say than before, due to what I cite in bold above.oscarBravo wrote: »yes. When you join up as a member of a larger body, you no longer have the same degree of autonomy you once had. That's a given.
If you as a worker join a trade union, you no longer have as much say over your relationship with your employer as you once had. You have ceded much of your sovereignty over industrial relations to the union, in return for the collective bargaining strength that it offers. More accurately, you've pooled your sovereignty, because you get to vote on the union's actions. Those votes won't always go your way, and may in fact be actively harmful to you, but that's the price of admission.
Union votes work by majority vote - which, due to the bolded part above noting the minority veto, is an unsuitable comparison to the EU.
Again, that's the standard of democracy that the EU is measured against. A supranational entity implements a much poorer standard of democracy, than a proper national government.oscarBravo wrote: »You seem to have a very one-size-fits-all approach to governance: it will be fine to abolish national governments and replace them with a single democratically-elected EU government, because then it's the sort of "democracy" you're comfortable with.
Democracy means exactly one thing to me: rule by the people. That's it.
By your own definition of pooled sovereignty, you claim member states still have a say - except I pointed out areas where they don't (one example being where minority veto is in effect) - in direct conflict with your definition.oscarBravo wrote: »You're arguing that it's a flawed term, because you have a problem with some of its outcomes. That's a sideways argument.
Are you claiming that member states still have a say, even when a minority veto is in effect?
You yourself described the EU as a supra-national organization - when you do it, it's perfectly fine and normal - when someone else does it, they're "casting the Union as if it was a completely distinct body from the member states" - what does that criticism even mean?oscarBravo wrote: »You're doing what all critics of the EU do, when it suits their argument: you're casting the Union as if it was a completely distinct body from the member states.
The members don't "grant control" to the EU; the member states are the EU. They don't cede sovereignty to an independent third party; they pool sovereignty among themselves through agreed mechanisms.
The term "pooled sovereignty" is entirely accurate. Your case for disagreeing with it is weak, I'm afraid.
The EU, as a legal framework and set of institutions, must - simply as a matter of practicality - be discussed as distinct from member states.
Can you quote any kind of official definition of the term 'pooled sovereignity'? I've already dismantled your personal definition of it, and I don't want to waste time further debating the term, unless there is some more authoritative definition.
The complete loss of stimulus-based recovery policies, and being forced into austerity, would be one of the primary examples here.oscarBravo wrote: »You got me: I missed the "unexpected" part. Nice swerve. You claimed that there was an unforeseen loss of policy controls. Which policy controls did we unexpectedly lose?
So one minute the path that was taken is 'expected' for you, and then 'unexpected', right...oscarBravo wrote: »Unless you can demonstrate that no national government (your ideal model for democracy) has ever taken an unexpected path in response to a crisis, It's hard to see what your point is.
Yet the EU - principally the Euro - has led to a far greater loss of democratic control, once the crisis hit and settled in, than citizens were led to believe when voting in favour of the EU's current configuration. This is the nub of why the EU's future is in question.oscarBravo wrote: »And I've described how any supra-national agreement of necessity requires a loss of democratic control.
Ireland is a signatory to the Ottawa Treaty, which means we can no longer democratically decide to include landmines in our military arsenal. Granted, nobody wants us to have landmines: but that doesn't change the fact that we signed away our right to have them.
More topically, as a signatory to the Geneva Convention, we are obliged to take in refugees. Some people are deeply unhappy about this, but it doesn't matter: even if a majority of the population don't want to take in refugees, we still have to take them in. That's a loss of democratic control.
So, yes: our EU membership means that we've lost some democratic control. That's the price of admission. You don't get to point to the things you want, while bitching about the things you don't - that way Brexit lies.
Instead of talking in general terms about the structure of the EU, lets be specific: The primary point of contention with the EU, and primary means by which it has led to increasing and unexpected loss of democratic control over countries, is through the Euro and the mechanisms underlying that currency, and its effects on individual countries policymaking.
It is a currency which has built-in and set in stone, imbalances between EU nations, that both helped to build up the economic crisis prior to 2007/8, and which has greatly worsened the effects of the crisis after this time, compared to what would have happened if countries retained their own currencies (and all of the wider policy options for dealing with such a crisis).
That currency should not have happened in the first place, and now that it has, countries are trapped in it - and due to the EU's inability to reform its economic policy in a way that would correct that currencies faults, we are heading for a future of increasing loss of democratic control over national policymaking, and probably a future breakup of the EU (unless a path is made for aborting the currency without breaking up the EU).
As an aside, these posts are getting way too long, and we both aren't progressing in moving each others viewpoints - so I may bow out of this, if we just seem to be repeating ourselves.0 -
You're right about one thing: the posts are getting too long. So, to address some of your points:
You describe representative democracy as the "standard of democracy". You're arbitrarily taking a standard that applies to countries, and criticising a non-country for not meeting that standard. That's just silly.
You point out that citizens have less of a say than they would if sovereignty weren't pooled. Yes: and an individual citizen would have total autonomy if stranded alone on a desert island. You think that citizen wouldn't choose to trade in some of that autonomy in order to be part of a society? And that's the point you miss when you bang single-mindedly on the "democracy" drum: everything is a tradeoff. Pooling sovereignty isn't a one-way street. There are benefits to EU membership, contrary to the rantings of some English rags. Having less of a say in some respects is the price of those benefits.
You claim that the existence of a veto is undemocratic. Sure, in a narrow sense that's true: but it's the same one-dimensional thinking that equates "more democratic" to "better". Removing Ireland's veto over issues that are important to us would make the Union more democratic, but I don't see too many people arguing for it. Vetoes are a red herring anyway; the Union operates almost entirely on the basis of consensus, which in many ways beats the hell out of simple-minded majority rule.
As for the Euro, I'm honestly not interested in going down the rabbit hole of arguing monetary policy with you.0 -
Advertisement
-
One part of representative democracy that I view as a good standard though, is the proximity between citizens democratic voting, their representatives, and the ultimate decision making.
I think with the EU, with the exception of the EU parliament, there is far less proximity between citizens democratic vote, and the decision making processes - there are extra layers of complexity within the supranational EU organizations/structure, which create a greater separation from citizens and the decision making process, compared to how this works at a national level - and I view this as having a negative impact on the democratic nature of the EU.
These extra layers of complexity, include things such as the minority veto, that has a big impact in certain areas of policy.
I don't view these concerns as silly at all - and I absolutely think that supra-national entities should be subject to criticism, the more they erode democratic standards, away from the quality achieved in a representative democracy.
I'm not arguing for complete intolerance to a deviance in such democratic standards either, due to the collective benefits that can be achieved - but I do think the EU is increasingly going beyond the balance of benefits to harm here, particularly when it comes to the Euro and the structures underlying it.
When I said that citizens have less of a say now with the EU, I was also saying that, in the context of people being collective citizens within the whole of the EU, not just in the context of individual member states - even with sovereignty 'pooled', the collective say of citizens is effectively eroded, due to the structure of the EU (and particularly the minority veto I mention).
What all of my posts go back to is this: If you strip away the Euro, you solve most of these problems with the EU's arguable democratic deficit - you don't eliminate the potential for more problems with the democratic quality of the EU - but you do strip away the worst offender for perpetuating an increasing loss of democratic control over countries within the EU.
For all the benefits you proclaim from the EU (and yes, nobody would deny the real benefits) - the Euro was a mistake, where the balance of harm vs benefit, greatly crosses into the level of severe compounding harm - and it should not be a requirement for continued EU membership, yet it is, and countries are trapped in it also due to the severe economic repercussions of abandoning it (which include effective EU expulsion).
The EU's minority veto, combined with the Euro, is where the primary harm comes from - as the evolution/reform (or lack of due to the veto) of the Euro, affects all of us (all Euro nations), far more greatly than a veto over almost any other area of EU policymaking - a veto over some obscure EU-level consumer regulation, is fairly benign compared to a veto over reform of the massively flawed structures underlying the Euro, which impose severe economic imbalances across Euro nations (and which happen to benefit some nations, at the expense of others).
You don't need to debate monetary policy, to acknowledge the massive flaws in the Euro and structures underlying it either.0 -
Jesus lads some of yer above posts are so long they're like books!
Which sectors will be hit worst by a break up of the EU do ye think?0 -
I don't recall ever seeing you criticise the UN on this basis, despite the fact that it's much more true of it than it is of the EU.KyussBeeshop wrote: »One part of representative democracy that I view as a good standard though, is the proximity between citizens democratic voting, their representatives, and the ultimate decision making.
I think with the EU, with the exception of the EU parliament, there is far less proximity between citizens democratic vote, and the decision making processes - there are extra layers of complexity within the supranational EU organizations/structure, which create a greater separation from citizens and the decision making process, compared to how this works at a national level - and I view this as having a negative impact on the democratic nature of the EU.
OK: let's imagine an EU that operates on the basis of simple majorities. That could be a majority of member states, but it's probably more "democratic" (rule by the people, remember?) to allow a number of countries forming at least half the population to set policy.When I said that citizens have less of a say now with the EU, I was also saying that, in the context of people being collective citizens within the whole of the EU, not just in the context of individual member states - even with sovereignty 'pooled', the collective say of citizens is effectively eroded, due to the structure of the EU (and particularly the minority veto I mention).
That means that if Germany, France, the UK (for now), Italy and Spain agree on something, they get to impose that on the other 23 member states.
Does that sound like an improvement on a veto to you?
I had a feeling all this talk of democracy fundamentally came down to an issue with monetary union.What all of my posts go back to is this: If you strip away the Euro, you solve most of these problems with the EU's arguable democratic deficit - you don't eliminate the potential for more problems with the democratic quality of the EU - but you do strip away the worst offender for perpetuating an increasing loss of democratic control over countries within the EU.0 -
It's a hybrid of an intergovernmental organisation and a quasi federal government. There's really no similar system and trying to pigeonhole it as a one or the other is a bit stupid as the EU is neither.
1. Council of the EU / Council of Ministers is just an intergovernmental meeting of executive heads of government or line ministers of a particular area of policy. Difficult to call that undemocratic.
2. Commission - each commissioner is a sovereign government appointee and must be approved by the European Parliament. It's not directly elected but it is accountable. It's arguably more accountable than US Presidential Cabinet appointments and wields similar power.
3. European Parliament - directly elected by proportional representation votes in member states. That's about as democratic as you can get.
4. Very clearly defined body of law, very defined concepts of rights and robust enforcement through the ECJ and as an adjunct the ECHR (outside the EU).
It's not perfect but it does a fairly decent job of providing a supernational structure for 28 (soon to be 27) members who speak different languages, have different political parties and non identical legal systems.
Turning the EU into a single federal democracy where you could directly elect a President might prove very difficult to do as you've umpteen political structures operating in parallel.
You've also got an extreme doctrine of subsidiarity in the EU which aims always to push decisions to lowest level and as local as possible. That's for example shown in its most extreme where you'd the Wallonia Parliament in Belgium blocking CETA.
Democracy worked against Greece because fundamentally, when pushed nobody wants to pay for Greek debts. If they did, the EU would have acted to do more dramatic intervention.
Also, I find t a bit rich for Uk commentators to call the EU undemocratic when the House of Lords is still sitting there with life peers and bishops potentially influencing legislation. The UK is still a democracy but it's far from a perfect one either.
Also with regards to vetos and reprebetat0 -
It's never really come up - obviously the UN, with the veto powers it vests in select major nations, and how that is used by the US to e.g. protect Israel from sanction, makes a mockery of the UN - even though the UN does do some good.oscarBravo wrote: »I don't recall ever seeing you criticise the UN on this basis, despite the fact that it's much more true of it than it is of the EU.
My arguments don't set out to establish a better way to organize a supranational organization like the EU though, only to establish how it erodes the quality of democracy.oscarBravo wrote: »OK: let's imagine an EU that operates on the basis of simple majorities. That could be a majority of member states, but it's probably more "democratic" (rule by the people, remember?) to allow a number of countries forming at least half the population to set policy.
That means that if Germany, France, the UK (for now), Italy and Spain agree on something, they get to impose that on the other 23 member states.
Does that sound like an improvement on a veto to you?
I had a feeling all this talk of democracy fundamentally came down to an issue with monetary union.
I think, if we are going to have a supranational organization instead of an EU wide government, then in many areas having a veto is suitable - but that in other areas, principally the Euro and structures underlying that, it is not - but I don't think in the latter case, that a member state majority would necessarily be better, I think that if you're going to have a single currency, it is going to be very hard to make it properly functional without a full scale EU government, with fiscal/taxation control (so I would prefer we either not have a single currency, or save that until the EU is ready to properly unify into a single nation).
The halfway house we have now, of a currency divorced from a single national government, I think is one of the primary things that is leading to greater unexpected impingements on countries democratic control, without properly restoring the same quality of democratic control at an EU level (due to issues like the minority veto etc.).0 -
The commentary here seems to be largely based on a "I don't like the Euro" premise and criticism about it is because it somehow is "limiting us" from making certain choices.
As there is no actual evidence to back up that assertion, it is disingenuous to put it mildly.
The EU is a union of sovereign nations. The EU Treaties make it clear that it is up to each member state to manage its economy (& regulatory authorities) just as it would be were there no EU. Being in the EU does not absolve a country from the responsibility of doing this.
When we hit a large problem, following years of failing to rein in an obvious property bubble, it was up to us to resolve the problem.
We did not have to borrow at all to continue running public services as though there were little if any crisis, we chose to do so. Nor did we have to borrow monies from any IMF or EU funds, again, we chose to do so. Equally we could have chosen to borrow from just one of them (e.g. The IMF) or, indeed, we could have chosen to forego all such borrowings, although it would have been highly unpleasant to do either of these.
Equally we could have chosen, as a sovereign nation, to chase the "magic money tree" solution touted by many at the time. No one prevented us from doing so, nor could they have, had that been our wish, short of invading us.
Had we done so, we would almost certainly have ended up outside the EU, in default on our international loans and considerably poorer as a result. Anyone who thinks this means we would have avoided "austerity" is living in cloud-cuckoo land.
We, as a sovereign nation, did not make such democratic choices and the fact that, today, our economy is growing at a fast rate, unemployment is on the way down etc all flow from our democratic decisions made during the crisis, just as the crisis itself flowed from our democratic decisions, a few years previously, to let the housing market become a property bubble.0 -
In fairness, when you paraphrase my arguments the way you did in the first sentence, and just brush over all the complexities of the arguments made so far, to bring the debate back to step zero, then you can't expect me to cover the same ground with you that I did with oscarBravo - that would be a waste of time, that would just repetitively fill more pages with what has already been said, without progressing the arguments somewhere new.
My arguments were generally not about what should or should not have been done in response to the crisis (even if that was touched upon), but were about establishing how the current structure of the EU erodes the quality of democracy.0 -
I honestly don't know what that even means. It's one of those phrases that convey a feeling, but zero information.KyussBeeshop wrote: »...establishing how the current structure of the EU erodes the quality of democracy.
How do you objectively measure the "quality of democracy", and how can you objectively demonstrate that the structure of the EU is eroding it?
I'm pretty sure you can't, which is why every single conversation I've ever seen about the alleged "democratic deficit" (a phrase that still remains stubbornly undefined) falls back on platitudes about how people feel, or what they believe.
Contrary to what Mr Gingrich would have us believe, feelings are not the new facts. If there's an objective metric for quality of democracy, and objective evidence of its erosion, let's have it.0 -
ancapailldorcha wrote: »I hope not. I believe that it adds a lot more than it takes. Short term, the main threat is the possibility of France leaving. That'll be it IMO. The UK leaving is bad for the EU but the British have always been half-hearted members of the club at best when you consider the rebate, their veto, etc.. One thing which will hopefully help save the project is that people will see that voting against the establishment simply for the sake of it has very real consequences. The other is that the young will hopefully actually turn out and vote instead of letting older, more conservative voters decide their futures for them.
But what is the EU project ?
Is it Peter Sutherland's Europe without borders, without national identities ?
Is it Merkel's free for all with uncontrolled immigratiojn from every sh**hole in the world ?
Is it a Federal Europe controlled by the three towers of Berlin, Frankfurt and Brussels ?
Is it an every expanding project that will take in Turkey, even though most Europeans do not want them ?
I am seriously asking for someone to definite what exactly is this great project that they believe so vehemently in.A lot of the younger generation in the UK are completely against Brexit and don't want to leave, it seems it was the older generation voted out. It'll be an interesting few years
Hopefully the French are not as thick...but as people have stated time for the EU to stop dictating laws to different nations about refugees etc.
Yes anyone that does not vote the "right enlightened way" is thick.Zubeneschamali wrote: »Just think, rescued us from utter ruin due to our local gombeen politicians corruption and stupidity.
We paid well for that rescue.
The EU's rescue was akin to throwing us a lifebouy ring that had an anvil tied to it.
The EU/ECB and indeed the Americans made the IMF look benevolent.
And that is some achievement.
But it is nice to see some are so deluded to actually think the EU/ECB give a flying fook about anyone of the PIIGS&C.Jesus lads some of yer above posts are so long they're like books!
Which sectors will be hit worst by a break up of the EU do ye think?
I reckon internet discussion forums might do well.
Although with the breakup a lot of posters will be throwing their toys out of the pram in such a fashion that makes the hoopla after Trumps election look like a Quaker meeting.I am not allowed discuss …
0 -
You are choosing to ignore that I have made detailed arguments explaining how I view democracy as being eroded, in order to nitpick at terms I use to encapsulate those wider arguments. For example:oscarBravo wrote: »I honestly don't know what that even means. It's one of those phrases that convey a feeling, but zero information.
How do you objectively measure the "quality of democracy", and how can you objectively demonstrate that the structure of the EU is eroding it?
I'm pretty sure you can't, which is why every single conversation I've ever seen about the alleged "democratic deficit" (a phrase that still remains stubbornly undefined) falls back on platitudes about how people feel, or what they believe.
Contrary to what Mr Gingrich would have us believe, feelings are not the new facts. If there's an objective metric for quality of democracy, and objective evidence of its erosion, let's have it.
That is one previous argument I have used to, in detail, explain an area I have an issue with and how I view it (particularly the minority veto when it comes to the Euro) as eroding the quality of democracy.KyussBeeshop wrote:The EU's minority veto, combined with the Euro, is where the primary harm comes from - as the evolution/reform (or lack of due to the veto) of the Euro, affects all of us (all Euro nations), far more greatly than a veto over almost any other area of EU policymaking - a veto over some obscure EU-level consumer regulation, is fairly benign compared to a veto over reform of the massively flawed structures underlying the Euro, which impose severe economic imbalances across Euro nations (and which happen to benefit some nations, at the expense of others).
I will use terms like democratic deficit, eroding the quality of democracy etc., to encapsulate my wider arguments where I explain how I view this as happening, so that I can refer to those arguments without having to repeat them verbatim.
If all you can do at this stage is rail at the terms I use, rather than the arguments they encapsulate, I'll take it that you don't have any counterarguments left - particularly, you seem to see that the arguments regarding the undemocratic aspects of the Euro, are a weak spot in your case, and you are making a point of avoiding that.
If you think my arguments are based on 'feelings' instead of facts - then it's up to you to actually show this. Railing at the terms I use to encapsulate those arguments, instead of at my actual arguments (which, in the case of the Euro, you have stated you will avoid), doesn't help you to show this.0 -
Advertisement
Advertisement