Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

But I believe that democracy works best the closer you are to it. But if you seperate the people from the decision makers with MEPs, European Commision, President this, president that, and an organisation that grows and grows with unaccountable global trade deals...

Then people are cut off and unrest and bitterness sets in.

This happens with literally every organization of any size. Be it a company of 50 people or a megastate of hundreds of millions. You can see it in the UK where there are multiple elements in multiple areas that all feel cut off, dictated to, and controlled by London & Westminster, and that's at a *far* smaller scale

Yeah, but there's a question of intent I think. You're correct that practically any organisation, given sufficient resources, will naturally expand. But in the context you're referring to, it's merely a result of mission creep, private empire building by managers, and so forth. At the end of the day, the Westminster Government very clearly espouses what its remit is, what it governs over, and when it chooses to extend/change that, precisely what it intends to do, why, and how.

In the case of the EU, to steal a wonderful direct quote from Mr Juncker on the expansion of the EU remit:-

"We decide on something, leave it lying around, and wait and see what happens. If no one kicks up a fuss, because most people don't understand what has been decided, we continue step by step until there is no turning back."

It's a little more deliberate and intentional than that natural outgrowth all organisations suffer from. It's the difference between a mid-level manager choosing to hire two secretaries
where one will do, and the CEO/Board making a conscious decision to expand into a new market but cook the books so the shareholders can't find out.


With regards to the European super-state, I'm aware that sometimes europhiles wave at the original Treaty of Rome and say 'It's right there, if you want to see it'. I maintain though, that the vague tenet to promote European understanding contained therein is not equivalent to saying 'We wish to build a new integrated nation-state from the component members', and only someone looking for any straw to grasp would promote it as such. To continue the business analogy, it's much like pointing to the Mission Statement of a company to 'Be innovative' as the reason for the CEO maintaining a private jet at company expense. You can just about link the two if you work hard and obfuscate, but it's pretty obvious how loose the connection is.

Note that I have no issue with a United European Government as a concept, or even with the EU becoming it. I just wish they'd be bloody honest about it. Fearfulness for whatever supra-government would ultimately derive from such two faced misdirection is one of the primary reasons I voted out.

What was that quote I heard about the referendum for the EU constitution? If the answer is yes it's full steam ahead. If the answer is no we will continue. That's (one reason) why I hate it. Democracy means feth all to them.

You mean that a country with half a million people should have as many MEP as a country with 80 million people? And you think the EU is undemocratic now?

The fact that the people of one country don't want to be overruled by the people of another much larger country?

Its the same exact reason why the SNP want Scottish independence from the UK, so Scotland isn't overruled by the much bigger population of England.

 welshhoppo wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

But I believe that democracy works best the closer you are to it. But if you seperate the people from the decision makers with MEPs, European Commision, President this, president that, and an organisation that grows and grows with unaccountable global trade deals...

Then people are cut off and unrest and bitterness sets in.

This happens with literally every organization of any size. Be it a company of 50 people or a megastate of hundreds of millions. You can see it in the UK where there are multiple elements in multiple areas that all feel cut off, dictated to, and controlled by London & Westminster, and that's at a *far* smaller scale. This is nothing new, and has been the case for hundreds of years and the cause of bloodshed...more than once. Hence why there was so much strife in Ireland throughout the 20th century, a strong SNP today, and rumblings in Wales and Cornwall.

While there is some very legitimate criticism of EU policy, structure, etc, any organization of its size is naturally going to have some level of disconnect and have many people that, no matter how well the EU is devolved/locally connected/etc, will never be pro-EU. Same with the US for much of its existence.

That's why you need to build it from the ground up. Like the American system which was designed pretty much from the early days.mive said this before, but the EU are trying to work backwards and it just doesn't work. The longer it goes on the less democratic it becomes. Eventually it will probably turn into a Franco-German alliance with friends due to the vast differn said between Germany and France and the rest of the EU. That's why America has the Electoral College so America isn't only ruled by 5 states out of 50.

You do realize that the EU is equally democratic and that votes are distributed based on population size in the European Parliament? With the European Commission based on 28 members each on picked by a respective member state? Everything in the EU is directly or indirectly chosen by us the voters. Same as the US.

Having a system based off population is not democratic in the slightest. Germany has more MEPs than the 10 smallest nation states. Germany is equal to a third of the total members of the EU.

As for the commission, that is 1 head of state. Just 1. In order to get anything to the commission you need 25% of the commission to support it. So how do you get the support of 6 other heads of state?

It just doesn't work, and that's only 2 parts of the system.

If the EU were to reduce the amount of MEPs so that each country had an equal amount, then we'd be getting somewhere. But when one country can brush off the concerns of 10 others, it isn't democratic.

What would be undemocratic is if some people's opinions and choices were given more strength than others. This is exactly what you are suggesting, and what people like the SNP want. Power and government based on the number of votes and number of people is the very definition of democracy. "Rule of the majority" is a term used all the time. Any system where some people's votes are worth more is less democratic by definition.

 welshhoppo wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

But I believe that democracy works best the closer you are to it. But if you seperate the people from the decision makers with MEPs, European Commision, President this, president that, and an organisation that grows and grows with unaccountable global trade deals...

Then people are cut off and unrest and bitterness sets in.

This happens with literally every organization of any size. Be it a company of 50 people or a megastate of hundreds of millions. You can see it in the UK where there are multiple elements in multiple areas that all feel cut off, dictated to, and controlled by London & Westminster, and that's at a *far* smaller scale. This is nothing new, and has been the case for hundreds of years and the cause of bloodshed...more than once. Hence why there was so much strife in Ireland throughout the 20th century, a strong SNP today, and rumblings in Wales and Cornwall.

While there is some very legitimate criticism of EU policy, structure, etc, any organization of its size is naturally going to have some level of disconnect and have many people that, no matter how well the EU is devolved/locally connected/etc, will never be pro-EU. Same with the US for much of its existence.

That's why you need to build it from the ground up. Like the American system which was designed pretty much from the early days.mive said this before, but the EU are trying to work backwards and it just doesn't work. The longer it goes on the less democratic it becomes. Eventually it will probably turn into a Franco-German alliance with friends due to the vast differn said between Germany and France and the rest of the EU. That's why America has the Electoral College so America isn't only ruled by 5 states out of 50.

You do realize that the EU is equally democratic and that votes are distributed based on population size in the European Parliament? With the European Commission based on 28 members each on picked by a respective member state? Everything in the EU is directly or indirectly chosen by us the voters. Same as the US.

Having a system based off population is not democratic in the slightest. Germany has more MEPs than the 10 smallest nation states. Germany is equal to a third of the total members of the EU.

As for the commission, that is 1 head of state. Just 1. In order to get anything to the commission you need 25% of the commission to support it. So how do you get the support of 6 other heads of state?

It just doesn't work, and that's only 2 parts of the system.

If the EU were to reduce the amount of MEPs so that each country had an equal amount, then we'd be getting somewhere. But when one country can brush off the concerns of 10 others, it isn't democratic.

You're literally arguing that the system isn't democratic because the minority can't overrule the majority. That is crazy.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

But I believe that democracy works best the closer you are to it. But if you seperate the people from the decision makers with MEPs, European Commision, President this, president that, and an organisation that grows and grows with unaccountable global trade deals...

Then people are cut off and unrest and bitterness sets in.

This happens with literally every organization of any size. Be it a company of 50 people or a megastate of hundreds of millions. You can see it in the UK where there are multiple elements in multiple areas that all feel cut off, dictated to, and controlled by London & Westminster, and that's at a *far* smaller scale. This is nothing new, and has been the case for hundreds of years and the cause of bloodshed...more than once. Hence why there was so much strife in Ireland throughout the 20th century, a strong SNP today, and rumblings in Wales and Cornwall.

While there is some very legitimate criticism of EU policy, structure, etc, any organization of its size is naturally going to have some level of disconnect and have many people that, no matter how well the EU is devolved/locally connected/etc, will never be pro-EU. Same with the US for much of its existence.

That's why you need to build it from the ground up. Like the American system which was designed pretty much from the early days.mive said this before, but the EU are trying to work backwards and it just doesn't work. The longer it goes on the less democratic it becomes.

Could you expand on that more just out of curiosity? I'm not sure I follow your meaning in this sense.

Eventually it will probably turn into a Franco-German alliance with friends due to the vast differn said between Germany and France and the rest of the EU.

Without the UK that's far more likely as there won't be another major power to sway things, but even then, it's unlikely to be a Franco-German iron dominion, they have their own issues and concerns and other elements of Europe aren't going to be as comparatively weak as they are now forever.

That's why America has the Electoral College so America isn't only ruled by 5 states out of 50.

Except that's exactly what the electoral college does (they're just not the biggest states) if you don't live in one of a small number of swing states, your vote for president is effectively simply tossed out. Look at our last election and see how well that system worked out if you want to talk about democratic representation

Except it is still better than using just the popular voting method. About 40 cities in the US make up over half of the population. Which means that those cities are the ones that decide the election. Unfortunately it does cause swing states which have lower populations where each vote is technically worth more, but I'd still say it's a better system that having 40 cities decide the fate of a country as large as the US.


And as for Germany having a larger population, it still doesn't make it fair. You have 2 distinct groups in the EU, the "original members" which have a lot more swing than the "newer" ones. Polices that most benefit them are then forces upon the smaller states. The CAP Is a good example. It was basically a good deal for Germany and France, the rest of the EU and great big chunks of the world be damned. And it then took them decades to fix it because the EU moves slower than a slug In a salt mine.

 Orlanth wrote:


They imply that indirectly, but they imply that strongly.
People voted leave, so to the Guardian that meant they were hoodwinked on immigration, of hoodwinked by Farage, or hoodwinked on EU bureaucracy, or hoodwinked over the NHS. The repeated implication is that Leave voters wee gullible and needed shepherding away from these opinions.

No that's what you want it to say and what you are telling others to say. The same thing is at action here that is stated in the article. Changing what it means, changing the context so that others might take your interpretation as what the guardian is doing rather than letting people make up their own mind with all the information to hand. It says nothing about being hoodwinked, it's saying that those identified by massive amounts as data as undecided or on the fence were bombarded with information in a manner that gives the impression that the Leave argument was the right argument. Both sides talked a load of rubbish but we knew what being the EU was like, everything that was said about being outside was made up and not based on any information that has not been discredited.

Not surprised you don't see it. The progressive bubble is a real phenomenon and a dangerous one. Take 'safe spacing' for example, where freedom of personal doctrine is achieved by denial of platform, and this occurs in places of education.

That's because my eyes are wide open. The reason such things exist because some groups have overtly hostile to those deemed 'Different' somehow. It's a result of people's actions that these places were felt to be necessary. If as a populace people felt comfortable expressing views of who they were without some numbskull being homophobic, racist etc then such places wouldn't be necessary. In reality it's no different than a men's only golf club and so on that we have had for a long time where people self segregate.

Actually PR gives you regional not local representatives, because actual local representation has to be sacrificed to give the block of votes available to fuel a multi vacancy per voting area. Also there is still no guarantee of representation, also it denies the public the opportunity to vote against candidates directly, because even with fringe parties the top list candidate become unshakably safe unless the vote is effectively wiped out.

Regional is just another type of 'local' that's a bit larger. If, for example, they represent Cambridgeshire does it matter that they then cover the whole of that region rather than some arbitrary area drawn on a map? Would you not prefer to take a point to a more receptive local MP than one that might just ignore it completely because it doesn't agree with the politicians or parties views? And the idea that top list candidates are not already protected is farcical anyway those parties want just parachute them into safe seats anyway.

The Uk parliamentary system is in actuality one of the fairer ones because is devests democracy to as local a level as possible for the representation. How this is used is up to people, and people will find advantage if they can. PR is just a way of saying 'jerrymander different', the answer is to find candidates who can enthuse a local population to vote for them. Whether x million Lib Dems have fewer actual MP's is just statistical noise, instead of blaming the system they need to get local people to vote for local candidates.

I'm afraid that it's not just statistical noise when you can get 35% of the vote and win 55% of the seats. Any system that allows a significant minority to give a party the majority is not a balanced system and is also ripe for exploitation. You forget that it is meant to be representative of the people. If 35% of the vote goes to the party then they should get 35% of the seats plus or minus a few percent. It should not be 20% as that is just a mockery of what democracy stands for.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

You mean that a country with half a million people should have as many MEP as a country with 80 million people? And you think the EU is undemocratic now?

The fact that the people of one country don't want to be overruled by the people of another much larger country?

Its the same exact reason why the SNP want Scottish independence from the UK, so Scotland isn't overruled by the much bigger population of England.

If they want they are free to leave. But so far its a more democratic system. The EU is supposed to take care of all its member states. Not just England. Scotland seems to have less problems with EU democracy than the UK one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 welshhoppo wrote:
And as for Germany having a larger population, it still doesn't make it fair. You have 2 distinct groups in the EU, the "original members" which have a lot more swing than the "newer" ones. Polices that most benefit them are then forces upon the smaller states. The CAP Is a good example. It was basically a good deal for Germany and France, the rest of the EU and great big chunks of the world be damned. And it then took them decades to fix it because the EU moves slower than a slug In a salt mine.

The bigger members have more swing because of the economic size. The UK could have been one of those and its loss is lamented by coalition partners in the EU such as Sweden and Poland. Its about making coalitions, sheer size gets you nowhere if the other 27 are opposed. You can't brute force things through, all individual parliaments still have a say.

You do realize Germany hates the CAP right? It exists mostly because of France.

 Steve steveson wrote:


What would be undemocratic is if some people's opinions and choices were given more strength than others. This is exactly what you are suggesting, and what people like the SNP want. Power and government based on the number of votes and number of people is the very definition of democracy. "Rule of the majority" is a term used all the time. Any system where some people's votes are worth more is less democratic by definition.

I'm glad you agree with me seeing as the various EU states have different ratios of population to MEP.


And the case (Id say) for Scotland is slightly different in that both of them are part of the national government and there is nothing from stopping the SNP from running people in seats outside of Scotland. Sure they probably wouldn't get very far, but the option is there for them.

I would very much like to see Scotland remain part of the U.K., but I agree that something does need to be done to cheer them up, I just don't think independence is that thing.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
What was that quote I heard about the referendum for the EU constitution? If the answer is yes it's full steam ahead. If the answer is no we will continue. That's (one reason) why I hate it. Democracy means feth all to them.

The referendum were ignored by the member states themselves. The French or Dutch parliaments could have blocked the treaty of Lisbon but they choose not to. This is less of a problem with the EU and more of your national democracy.

I am also aware that Germany hates the CAP now, but even then it shows how hard it is for the EU to change course.

 welshhoppo wrote:

 Steve steveson wrote:


What would be undemocratic is if some people's opinions and choices were given more strength than others. This is exactly what you are suggesting, and what people like the SNP want. Power and government based on the number of votes and number of people is the very definition of democracy. "Rule of the majority" is a term used all the time. Any system where some people's votes are worth more is less democratic by definition.

I'm glad you agree with me seeing as the various EU states have different ratios of population to MEP.


And the case (Id say) for Scotland is slightly different in that both of them are part of the national government and there is nothing from stopping the SNP from running people in seats outside of Scotland. Sure they probably wouldn't get very far, but the option is there for them.

I would very much like to see Scotland remain part of the U.K., but I agree that something does need to be done to cheer them up, I just don't think independence is that thing.

You do realize the MEPs aren't voting along nation lines but along party lines right?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 welshhoppo wrote:
I am also aware that Germany hates the CAP now, but even then it shows how hard it is for the EU to change course.

Because the EU isn't based on the tyranny of the majority. Each individual member state can halt proceedings. Either you think this is very undemocratic like your MEP stance or do you agree its great?

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:

 Steve steveson wrote:


What would be undemocratic is if some people's opinions and choices were given more strength than others. This is exactly what you are suggesting, and what people like the SNP want. Power and government based on the number of votes and number of people is the very definition of democracy. "Rule of the majority" is a term used all the time. Any system where some people's votes are worth more is less democratic by definition.

I'm glad you agree with me seeing as the various EU states have different ratios of population to MEP.


And the case (Id say) for Scotland is slightly different in that both of them are part of the national government and there is nothing from stopping the SNP from running people in seats outside of Scotland. Sure they probably wouldn't get very far, but the option is there for them.

I would very much like to see Scotland remain part of the U.K., but I agree that something does need to be done to cheer them up, I just don't think independence is that thing.

You do realize the MEPs aren't voting along nation lines but along party lines right?

I didn't say they were, but the total amount of MEPs are based on a ratio based off the total population. So that gives them the total amount of MEPs that they then get to choose.

 welshhoppo wrote:
I am also aware that Germany hates the CAP now, but even then it shows how hard it is for the EU to change course.

When some course changes take 28 states to agree.
Changing course is like a oil tanker. Its gonna take miles to make a large turn.

Oh and seems France would probably resist its removal and do whatever to delay it so they would make it pretty tough to turn the ships that is the EU when one crew member is fighting thr rest.

 welshhoppo wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:

 Steve steveson wrote:


What would be undemocratic is if some people's opinions and choices were given more strength than others. This is exactly what you are suggesting, and what people like the SNP want. Power and government based on the number of votes and number of people is the very definition of democracy. "Rule of the majority" is a term used all the time. Any system where some people's votes are worth more is less democratic by definition.

I'm glad you agree with me seeing as the various EU states have different ratios of population to MEP.


And the case (Id say) for Scotland is slightly different in that both of them are part of the national government and there is nothing from stopping the SNP from running people in seats outside of Scotland. Sure they probably wouldn't get very far, but the option is there for them.

I would very much like to see Scotland remain part of the U.K., but I agree that something does need to be done to cheer them up, I just don't think independence is that thing.

You do realize the MEPs aren't voting along nation lines but along party lines right?

I didn't say they were, but the total amount of MEPs are based on a ratio based off the total population. So that gives them the total amount of MEPs that they then get to choose.

It isnt based on ratio, again Luxembourg has 1/16th of the German vote but only 1/160th of the pop. Also Germany doesn't pick its MEPs. The German voters vote for candidates that connect themselves to certain European parties.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jhe90 wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:
I am also aware that Germany hates the CAP now, but even then it shows how hard it is for the EU to change course.

When some course changes take 28 states to agree.
Changing course is like a oil tanker. Its gonna take miles to make a large turn.

Oh and seems France would probably resist its removal and do whatever to delay it so they would make it pretty tough to turn the ships that is the EU when one crew member is fighting thr rest.

Doesn't this make the EU more democratic? It can't overrule the UK and I thought it overruling the UK was part of the undemocratic problem?

 jhe90 wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:
I am also aware that Germany hates the CAP now, but even then it shows how hard it is for the EU to change course.

When some course changes take 28 states to agree.
Changing course is like a oil tanker. Its gonna take miles to make a large turn.

Oh and seems France would probably resist its removal and do whatever to delay it so they would make it pretty tough to turn the ships that is the EU when one crew member is fighting thr rest.

Well CAP received massive amounts of criticism from outside the EU too. It did terrible things to many of the countries around Europe. Lots of EU produced food when into Africa and then undercut a load of local farmers.

I mean, CAP is in a better position now. But for years it caused a lot of issues and cost a load of money.

As for one country being able to buck the trend and halt whatever it is the EU is doing (like Ireland and the Lisborn treaty.) that is also a bad thing, but I wouldn't regard it as undemocratic. Except it makes the EU even more cantankerous than it needs to be.

Basically, I won't be happy with the EU no matter what it does. But that's why I'm a filthy leave voter after all. I just want it gone.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
You're literally arguing that the system isn't democratic because the minority can't overrule the majority. That is crazy.

The system is too big.

As DINLT said, for a democracy to work it has to be localized. Obviously, you are always going to have big blocks overruling smaller blocs (Germany vs Eastern Europe, England vs Scotland, London vs the rest of England). But the smaller the democracy the better. The smaller the size of a political State, the closer Government is brought to the people.

We don't have a shared cultural identity, we have different cultures, different values, different politics, different legal systems, different traditions, different histories. The average person does not identity as European first and foremost, they identify as British (or Scottish/English/Welsh), French, German, Italian, Spanish, Greek etc. The EU has tried to stamp out nationalism and national identity, but its still there, still a major obstacle to the European project. And until it is stamped out, people will always object to their country being overruled by another country.

 Steve steveson wrote:
What would be undemocratic is if some people's opinions and choices were given more strength than others. This is exactly what you are suggesting, and what people like the SNP want. Power and government based on the number of votes and number of people is the very definition of democracy. "Rule of the majority" is a term used all the time. Any system where some people's votes are worth more is less democratic by definition.

You really don't understand our objection to the EU, do you?

I don't want to be a part of this wider European democracy. The bigger the democracy, the more my influence as a voter is diminished. In Britain, I am one voter amongst 60 million. In Europe, I am one voter amongst 500 million. Being a member of the EU by definition diminishes the influence I can exert over the governance of my country.

I simply don't want to be part of one massive country of 500 million people, I want to be part of a smaller country, the United Kingdom.

[And yes, I know the EU is not currently a country in its own right, but that is clearly the direction we are heading in. "Ever closer union". The goal is clearly to one day unite Europe into one Nation state. I want to leave before that happens, and before we no longer have the Sovereign power to leave].


Now, you can mock me as a racist bigot or xenophobe all you like, but that doesn't change the fact that the bigger a democratic system is, the less democratic it becomes.

 welshhoppo wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:
I am also aware that Germany hates the CAP now, but even then it shows how hard it is for the EU to change course.

When some course changes take 28 states to agree.
Changing course is like a oil tanker. Its gonna take miles to make a large turn.

Oh and seems France would probably resist its removal and do whatever to delay it so they would make it pretty tough to turn the ships that is the EU when one crew member is fighting thr rest.

Well CAP received massive amounts of criticism from outside the EU too. It did terrible things to many of the countries around Europe. Lots of EU produced food when into Africa and then undercut a load of local farmers.

I mean, CAP is in a better position now. But for years it caused a lot of issues and cost a load of money.

As for one country being able to buck the trend and halt whatever it is the EU is doing (like Ireland and the Lisborn treaty.) that is also a bad thing, but I wouldn't regard it as undemocratic. Except it makes the EU even more cantankerous than it needs to be.

Basically, I won't be happy with the EU no matter what it does. But that's why I'm a filthy leave voter after all. I just want it gone.

So its both too democratic and undemocratic?

It's too big to be democratic so it becomes undemocratic.


As SCE said, try and devise a system of government that covers 500 million people from 28 different counties and probably thousands of different regions that is both fair, democratic and is capable of such flexibility to deal with external issues (like the crisis in Syria) or internal issues (like Greece's economy collapsing.)

When you do let me know, you can tell me how to my gravestone because such a thing is pretty much impossible.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

So its both too democratic and undemocratic?

Neither.

A big democracy (EU) is less democratic than a smaller democracy (Nation State). The bigger it becomes, the less influence you as an individual can wield over your Government.

So you should break up the UK? That seems to carry the same argument. The smaller the better right?

 welshhoppo wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:
I am also aware that Germany hates the CAP now, but even then it shows how hard it is for the EU to change course.

When some course changes take 28 states to agree.
Changing course is like a oil tanker. Its gonna take miles to make a large turn.

Oh and seems France would probably resist its removal and do whatever to delay it so they would make it pretty tough to turn the ships that is the EU when one crew member is fighting thr rest.

Well CAP received massive amounts of criticism from outside the EU too. It did terrible things to many of the countries around Europe. Lots of EU produced food when into Africa and then undercut a load of local farmers.

I mean, CAP is in a better position now. But for years it caused a lot of issues and cost a load of money.

As for one country being able to buck the trend and halt whatever it is the EU is doing (like Ireland and the Lisborn treaty.) that is also a bad thing, but I wouldn't regard it as undemocratic. Except it makes the EU even more cantankerous than it needs to be.

Basically, I won't be happy with the EU no matter what it does. But that's why I'm a filthy leave voter after all. I just want it gone.

The EU needs massive reforms at end of day. Pull everything apart, and rebuild it.
Maybe then. Even if it takes many years it might be more attractive.

Some things need to end. Shuffling parlinents, endless bail outs and credit, the fact no one has signed off the budgets for years for a while, maybe still even now.

It cannot fix things till it realises there are mistakes.

Yes I voted leave.
And the reasoning is a tad to complicated to type on my phone, safe to say I wanted to see UK remain a distinct nation than a European province.

 welshhoppo wrote:
It's too big to be democratic so it becomes undemocratic.


As SCE said, try and devise a system of government that covers 500 million people from 28 different counties and probably thousands of different regions that is both fair, democratic and is capable of such flexibility to deal with external issues (like the crisis in Syria) or internal issues (like Greece's economy collapsing.)

When you do let me know, you can tell me how to my gravestone because such a thing is pretty much impossible.

That is a problem of lack of competency. That is not a lack of democracy though. Its member states wanting to go halfway.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
So you should break up the UK? That seems to carry the same argument. The smaller the better right?

It's not so simple. You can't reduce a system too far otherwise you'll lose a lot of synergy between larger communities. The democratic republic of Swansea wouldn't get very far without access to food.

I mean, the U.K. Is at a level where I can physically go talk to my local MP or my local council member and they potentially report my issue with the Prime Minister, it's pretty good.


Sure we have the House of Lords, but nothing is perfect.

 welshhoppo wrote:
It's too big to be democratic so it becomes undemocratic.


As SCE said, try and devise a system of government that covers 500 million people from 28 different counties and probably thousands of different regions that is both fair, democratic and is capable of such flexibility to deal with external issues (like the crisis in Syria) or internal issues (like Greece's economy collapsing.)

When you do let me know, you can tell me how to my gravestone because such a thing is pretty much impossible.

Its simply too late to bind the countries of Europe together into one political entity. Our countries are simply too old, too different, our histories are too long, our values, politics, traditions, legal systems are too diverse. It worked for America because America was built from the ground up, it was founded as a youthful nation of States/former colonies with a lot more in common with each other than the countries of Europe have in common today. But even that was not without its own fair share of bloodshed.

I regard the European Union as an idealistic, Utopian pipe dream that will never work out, not in the way that its proponents hope it will. The only way to make it work will involve tyranny, not democracy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
So you should break up the UK? That seems to carry the same argument. The smaller the better right?

In theory, yes. Its a sliding scale, and everyone has a different opinion of where the ideal place on that scale is.

For supporters of the EU, its the EU.
For me, its the Union of England, Scotland and Wales, a tried and tested Union that has endured for 3 Centuries. (United Kingdom).
For DINLT, its Scotland.

 welshhoppo wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
So you should break up the UK? That seems to carry the same argument. The smaller the better right?

It's not so simple. You can't reduce a system too far otherwise you'll lose a lot of synergy between larger communities. The democratic republic of Swansea wouldn't get very far without access to food.

I mean, the U.K. Is at a level where I can physically go talk to my local MP or my local council member and they potentially report my issue with the Prime Minister, it's pretty good.


Sure we have the House of Lords, but nothing is perfect.

But the Netherlands works fine as a democracy, maybe even better than the UK. We have only 1/4th of the UK's pop, so why not quarter the UK. This is the problem I have with SCE argument. There is no perfect amount of population for democracy. Hell, India does it with 1 billion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
So you should break up the UK? That seems to carry the same argument. The smaller the better right?

In theory, yes. Its a sliding scale, and everyone has a different opinion of where the ideal place on that scale is.

For supporters of the EU, its the EU.
For me, its the Union of England, Scotland and Wales, a tried and tested Union that has endured for 3 Centuries. (United Kingdom).
For DINLT, its Scotland.

This is the exact problem though. A European superstate doesn't have to be a problem, it depends on the competencies the national level gets to preserve. A good part of why the EU doesn't function properly is because only the very supportive and very opposed show up in EU elections.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:
It's too big to be democratic so it becomes undemocratic.


As SCE said, try and devise a system of government that covers 500 million people from 28 different counties and probably thousands of different regions that is both fair, democratic and is capable of such flexibility to deal with external issues (like the crisis in Syria) or internal issues (like Greece's economy collapsing.)

When you do let me know, you can tell me how to my gravestone because such a thing is pretty much impossible.

That is a problem of lack of competency. That is not a lack of democracy though. Its member states wanting to go halfway.

And whats wrong with that? What is wrong with nations only desiring a small degree of integration - say, a free trade and movement zone, but not a monetary and fiscal Union? Why do we have to have this false dichotomy of all or nothing?

Why can't we have a two-tier European Union?

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:
It's too big to be democratic so it becomes undemocratic.


As SCE said, try and devise a system of government that covers 500 million people from 28 different counties and probably thousands of different regions that is both fair, democratic and is capable of such flexibility to deal with external issues (like the crisis in Syria) or internal issues (like Greece's economy collapsing.)

When you do let me know, you can tell me how to my gravestone because such a thing is pretty much impossible.

Its simply too late to bind the countries of Europe together into one political entity. Our countries are simply too old, too different, our histories are too long, our values, politics, traditions, legal systems are too diverse. It worked for America because America was built from the ground up, it was founded as a youthful nation of States/former colonies with a lot more in common with each other than the countries of Europe have in common today. But even that was not without its own fair share of bloodshed.

I regard the European Union as an idealistic, Utopian pipe dream that will never work out, not in the way that its proponents hope it will. The only way to make it work will involve tyranny, not democracy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
So you should break up the UK? That seems to carry the same argument. The smaller the better right?

In theory, yes. Its a sliding scale, and everyone has a different opinion of where the ideal place on that scale is.

For supporters of the EU, its the EU.
For me, its the Union of England, Scotland and Wales, a tried and tested Union that has endured for 3 Centuries. (United Kingdom).
For DINLT, its Scotland.

It took centuries to forge a untied kngdom of similar nations yet alone vastly different.

Its not easy to make a unified country or serris of them.
It takes generations to fully unite. Not years. The EU will always have issues from its size and growth rate.

Isn't it wonderful how all our political discussions eventually swing back around to bloody Brexit, again.

Personally, I'm just enjoying watching UKIP getting slaughtered, and Nigel Farage mourning the failure of his far right spank fantasy dribbling down the drain after Le Pen took a severe pounding by the French.

Doesn't make up for Brexit, obviously, but it's still nice .

In other news, Lib Dem proposed reforms to pensioner benefits,

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39831522

It is good to see something being proposed about pensioner benefits, a targetted cutting of the winter fuel allowance for those in the 40% tax bracket is a start, but could have also been combined with similar cuts to free TV licences, and travel concessions for the same demographic.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
But the Netherlands works fine as a democracy, maybe even better than the UK. We have only 1/4th of the UK's pop, so why not quarter the UK. This is the problem I have with SCE argument. There is no perfect amount of population for democracy. Hell, India does it with 1 billion.

India is a false equivalence.

India is one nation state, with a common cultural identity, values, traditions etc. They are not a Political Union of 28 different nation states.