If there is a second referendum ...

wunferall

Enterprise_1701C wrote: »

Utterly agree with your last paragraph.

They have also constantly avoided introducing new treaties because of the fact that many countries would have to have referenda about them. Everything has been done to increase the eu's hold on the continent without puplic consensus.

As I have said before, I was happy with the common market. I am not happy with the protectionist political union.

Yes it has, together with the ever-increasing use of majority voting.
Also the appointment of Martin Selmayer wasn't exactly open and democratic; I would like any remainer to tell us how any EU citizen voted for him or could vote to remove him?

This gumph about "at every general election" won't wash when there is no viable alternative to pro-EU parties.
That's without any doubt why populism is still on the rise across the EU.

BobQ

kinger101 wrote: »

I don't agree the EU is a more democratic institution than it's individual member states. By definition, any deficit in the way a member state appoints its government is carried though in the selection of the Council of Ministers

Any Government however elected can only send one Minister.

Are you saying a country that has proportional representation and so has a government representing over 50% of its population will appoint a better minister than one using first past the post and has a government elected by 40% of the population?

I don't think the EU can be democratic based on it's size or composition.

Hardly evidence of anything. This is just an opinion.

I voted remain and hope for a second referendum. At the very least, it would break an impasse.

That depends on the question asked.

Our own Parliament (including Labour) have failed miserably in their negotiation our of the EU. Largely because of self-interested hard-brexiteers (including Corbyn).

True

Although I'm a remainer, I believe we wouldn't be in this mess if the EU hadn't continually tried to extend it's remit without consensus.

This makes no sense to me. The EU said the same on the day after the referendum as it does today. You cannot cherrypick. Either you support the four freedoms or you do not. They have not wavered. Our politicians have hold us that they can negotiate on that red line. It has not worked.

BobQ

Enterprise_1701C wrote: »

Utterly agree with your last paragraph.

They have also constantly avoided introducing new treaties because of the fact that many countries would have to have referenda about them. Everything has been done to increase the eu's hold on the continent without puplic consensus.

As I have said before, I was happy with the common market. I am not happy with the protectionist political union.

They have had new treaties since they started this venture... Rome, Amsterdam, Maastrict, Lisbon........it has nothing to do with referenda. National Governments ratify the treaties or not based on their National rules. We chose to let Parliament ratify the treaties in the UK as that is our way of doing it.

BobQ

wunferall wrote: »

Yes it has, together with the ever-increasing use of majority voting.
Also the appointment of Martin Selmayer wasn't exactly open and democratic; I would like any remainer to tell us how any EU citizen voted for him or could vote to remove him?

This gumph about "at every general election" won't wash when there is no viable alternative to pro-EU parties.
That's without any doubt why populism is still on the rise across the EU.

Majority voting was included in a treaty which we signed. You ay be right to say it is undemocratic, but the only reason it applies to us is that we signed the treaty. We never moved to majority voting without agreeing to the principle of introducing it.

Who elects the Cabinet Secretary in the UK? Or the Permanent Secretary at the Treasury? Selmayer is an EU civil servant appointed for his expertise. Do you want an election of the Cabinet Secretary?

Tromking

It is said that democracy is on the wane and we are now living in an era where authoritarianism is again on the rise. To my mind there is not much of a difference between the democratic deficit that puts the likes of Putin, the geezer in Saudia Arabia, Xi Zinping in power and the institutions of the EU.
The thing is you don’t play fast and loose with democratic accountability, for example you don’t for the sake of pragmatism ignore the undoubted democratic deficit in Brussels just so you can remain part of a club that may be relatively benign in its intentions and may be good for your economy.
Democracy is hard and sometimes sends you places you’d rather not go, but in the long run it’s always worth it.

wunferall

BobQ wrote: »

Majority voting was included in a treaty which we signed. You ay be right to say it is undemocratic, but the only reason it applies to us is that we signed the treaty. We never moved to majority voting without agreeing to the principle of introducing it.

I was never asked whether or not I agreed with this, either in the 70's or since.
Neither were you or any UK citizen; we weren't asked about the treaty either.
So what is democratic about that?
Show us where it said back when we joined that the EEC would evolve in such a manner.

That is one of the many reasons we are leaving; the onward march of integration by stealth and sometimes by deception (as with the ever-increasing use of a majority voting system) which has the effect of stopping any single member from having the ability to veto.
At the very first time of asking since the 70's the UK said it wanted to leave, so in over 40 years they haven't done a great job of persuading the UK that theirs system is good for the UK.

After their "contribution" to Brexit, should another referendum happen even in the next 10 years and the EU's stances be made clear (as this time I'm sure they would be) there is no way that the UK would vote to either stay in or rejoin.

BobQ wrote: »

Who elects the Cabinet Secretary in the UK? Or the Permanent Secretary at the Treasury? Selmayer is an EU civil servant appointed for his expertise. Do you want an election of the Cabinet Secretary?

That is irrelevant and you know it.

You really do need a better understanding of what the EU Commission Secretary-General is supposed to be and just how much power they wield, hence the Commission's & European Ombudsman's criticism of how he was appointed.

Selmayr is a political figure aligned with the German Christian Democrats, and not a civil servant

https://corporateeurope.org/power-lobbies/2018/03/selmayrgate-or-why-secretary-general-job-matters

You're trying to defend the indefensible.

MobileSaver

wunferall wrote: »

I was never asked whether or not I agreed with this, either in the 70's or since. So what is democratic about that?

I always find the "I was never asked" argument to be one of the more pathetic excuses people use against the EU.

Democracy is citizens exercising power by voting and electing representatives to make decisions on their behalf. It does not suddenly become undemocratic if that representative makes a decision that you disagree with.

Even a simpleton should be able to understand that:

1. It would be completely unworkable for elected representatives to ask you what to do regarding every single decision they make.
2. It is totally impossible for every citizen to agree with every decision their elected representatives make.

Neither of those two points make the system undemocratic.

LHW99

Even a simpleton should be able to understand that:

1. It would be completely unworkable for elected representatives to ask you what to do regarding every single decision they make.
2. It is totally impossible for every citizen to agree with every decision their elected representatives make.

Neither of those two points make the system undemocratic.

I can agree with that, and yet still believe that the changes introduced in the EEC / EU by the various treaties should have been put to public vote. That is not "every single decision", but specific ones, involving the shifting of political decision making. The fact that Parliament decided there should be a law to enforce this in future makes me think that enough MP's felt something was wrong with the way earlier decisions were made.

wunferall

MobileSaver wrote: »

I always find the "I was never asked" argument to be one of the more pathetic excuses people use against the EU.

Do you think there's any chance that - just once - a remainer disagreeing with the valid viewpoint of a Brexiter can respond in a civil manner without the need to resort to insult?
My post which you quote is not, it appears, what was the "pathetic excuse".

MobileSaver wrote: »

Democracy is citizens exercising power by voting and electing representatives to make decisions on their behalf. It does not suddenly become undemocratic if that representative makes a decision that you disagree with.

At the first time of asking since joining what was once the Common Market our citizens democratically voted to leave.
If the representatives of the people do not honour this request of their people as they promised they would then that would be in fact not democratic.

MobileSaver wrote: »

Even a simpleton should be able to understand that:

1. It would be completely unworkable for elected representatives to ask you what to do regarding every single decision they make.
2. It is totally impossible for every citizen to agree with every decision their elected representatives make.

Neither of those two points make the system undemocratic.

This point has already been responded to but again, just in case there is indeed a simpleton reading this that did not understand the first time around:
Not every decision made by the EEC/EU requires or required a referendum.
When major alterations and/or shifts in political decision-making affect the country (as in the shift from a trading group to a political, lawmaking overlord) the people should have been asked if they wanted closer integration.
Not doing so was undemocratic; we are in the EU as the result of stealthy integration because we were not asked.
Hence at the first time of asking the country chose "Leave the EU".

BobQ

wunferall wrote: »

I was never asked whether or not I agreed with this, either in the 70's or since.
Neither were you or any UK citizen; we weren't asked about the treaty either.
So what is democratic about that?
Show us where it said back when we joined that the EEC would evolve in such a manner.

Fortunately democracy does not require your personal agreement!
We elect Governments at General Elections and they ratify on our behalf. Manifestos of the main parties all stated their policy on such Treaties and how they would be ratified.

I am not researching all the EU treaties for you but Qualified Majority Voting on some issues was covered by Treaties UK signed in the last century.

That is one of the many reasons we are leaving; the onward march of integration by stealth and sometimes by deception (as with the ever-increasing use of a majority voting system) which has the effect of stopping any single member from having the ability to veto.

Fair enough but we as a nation agreed to majority voting on specific issues.

At the very first time of asking since the 70's the UK said it wanted to leave, so in over 40 years they haven't done a great job of persuading the UK that theirs system is good for the UK.

Why should they? We joined a club that has rules. Would you expect your golf club to justify why you should continue your membership? Particularly when you are the member that is always moaning about the way the club is run.
.

That is irrelevant and you know it.

You really do need a better understanding of what the EU Commission Secretary-General is supposed to be and just how much power they wield, hence the Commission's & European Ombudsman's criticism of how he was appointed.

Its not at all - Would you expect the Cabinet Secretary to be elected?

I grant you this bureaucrat's appointment was not in accordance with the rules but this does happen in all organisations. I agree it is not right but do you think that this has never happened in the UK? Do you know how the Cabinet Secretary is appointed? The current PM and the outgoing CS decided it behind close doors? I agree two wrongs do not make a right we are hardly in a position to criticise.