BRITEX!!!

[John Cuthber]

 

And the European parliament has nearly zero power, despite being the only elected entity of the EU. It can't veto decisions by the Commission. It can't decide what laws it will debate. It can't dismiss the Commission. Paying some 1000 members plus their staff for that is an integral waste - or rather, I'd be happy to pay them for real action.

 

The EU is a creation by the national governments, so these have carefully kept all the power for them. The treaties and fundamental texts begin with "We, the governments..." and not with "We, peoples of Europe..." nor "We, the constituent assembly...". All decisions emanate from the national governments or the commissioners they have chosen, and then the national parliaments can't say a word neither. That's neither democratic nor efficient.

 

In France (less so in Germany), the EU serves mainly as an excuse for impopular measures decided by the national government. If the voters believe it even in 1% of all cases, no wonder they dislike the EU. Referendums overturned by the politicians also took their toll.

And the evidence for this is...

 

 

Referendum is not democratic?

 

 

No, not really.

If one side makes their case based on something they admit was a lie (within hours of the outcome being announced) then it's not true democracy it's fraud.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eu-referendum-result-nigel-farage-nhs-pledge-disowns-350-million-pounds-a7099906.html

[Strange]

Referendum is not democratic?

 

 

If it bypasses the properly elected representatives.

If a quarter of the population can impose their will on the rest.

 

If the majority of those happily admit they don't understand the issues.

 

If the claims made by one side are not just wrong but deliberate lies.

 

Then I think it is a pretty poor example of democracy.

 

The fact that these issues are incredibly complicated and require huge amounts of time and expertise to understand is the very reason we have representative democracies. Throwing that away for the most important decisions is insanity.

[DrP]

This is the last time you Brits get to tell Americans that they're voting with emotion and not their intellect.

 

.... and FOX go and report that the UK are leaving the UN. ;-) what were you saying about intellect?

[michel123456]

A few weeks ago, Farage said that a 52:48 result should result in another referendum: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/nigel-farage-wants-second-referendum-7985017

 

There is now a petition to demand this: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/131215

 

Somehow, I suspect Farage won't be signing it.

Haha, he may already signed it....

[Der_Neugierige]

If it bypasses the properly elected representatives.

 

If a quarter of the population can impose their will on the rest.

 

If the majority of those happily admit they don't understand the issues.

 

If the claims made by one side are not just wrong but deliberate lies.

 

Then I think it is a pretty poor example of democracy.

 

The fact that these issues are incredibly complicated and require huge amounts of time and expertise to understand is the very reason we have representative democracies. Throwing that away for the most important decisions is insanity.

Through direct democracy we can controll here in Switzerland what the politicans in Berne or in the 26 cantonal parliaments are deciding.

 

Referendums ARE democractic. Of course the population should be educated.

Through direct democracy we can controll here in Switzerland what the politicans in Berne or in the 26 cantonal parliaments are deciding.

Referendums ARE democractic. Of course the population should be educated.

Do you know what for me is not democratic: the current USA.

 

It seems weird for me that the US-Americans have to decide between a republican or democratic president.

 

Also the fact how serious problems in the USA do not get solved by politicans like gun problem or health insurance problem.

 

 

 

Referendum do indeed show the will of the population as you could see with the gay marriage referendum in Ireland.

 

 

 

Russia's society is not homophobic since Putin has put in this anti-gay law. They were homophobic even before Putin even was president.It is the same with antisemitism in Germany during Hitler. Hitler did not make the population hating jews. This hate against Jews was omnipresent even before Hitler was in power.

Edited June 25, 2016 by Der_Neugierige

[Strange]

Referendum do indeed show the will of the population as you could see with the gay marriage referendum in Ireland.

 

 

But sometimes the "will of the population" is just wrong.

 

 

 

Russia's society is not homophobic since Putin has put in this anti-gay law. They were homophobic even before Putin even was president.It is the same with antisemitism in Germany during Hitler. Hitler did not make the population hating jews. This hate against Jews was omnipresent even before Hitler was in power.

 

Thanks for proving my point. You don't allow the popular will to decide that minority groups should be persecuted. The role of government in such cases is to protect the minorities and to educate the population.

 

For example, the British government will never have a referendum on capital punishment. Because they know there is a good chance that the public would vote in favour, and then the results would have to be ignored.

 

It might be safe to allow the public to choose a new flag or national anthem. But even then you have to retain the right to overrule them. After all, we wouldn't want the new UK national anthem to be "All hail, Queeny McQueenface".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RRS_Sir_David_Attenborough

 

So, democratic? Not in the real world.

[acsinuk]

But we are part of Europe, we are Europeans unless we can move our island somewhere else. Our parliament shouldn't waste time pretending to exit but get on and sort out fuller employment. I believe people have the right to work and most want to achieve dignity. Wasting time filling in countless CVs whilst on the dole is depressing and caused this referendum protest. Shorter working week will help and should be encouraged Europe wide in my view

[John Cuthber]

But we are part of Europe, we are Europeans unless we can move our island somewhere else. Our parliament shouldn't waste time pretending to exit but get on and sort out fuller employment. I believe people have the right to work and most want to achieve dignity. Wasting time filling in countless CVs whilst on the dole is depressing and caused this referendum protest. Shorter working week will help and should be encouraged Europe wide in my view

Full employment- or at least reduced unemployment, should be a goal of government.

And yet our current government has deliberately acted in ways that it knows will reduce the number of jobs.

What we need is a less selfish government. Instead we chose the likes of Gove and Johnson.

[MigL]

Unfortunately there's always plenty of idiocy to go around, DrP. On both sides of the Atlantic, apparently.

 

I say the vote is binding.

Immediately eliminate England, Wales and both Irish teams from the Euro Cup competition.

( just kidding, but seriously, England needs to get rid of R. Hodgson. that guy is brutal. Is he picking his starters by drawing names out of a hat ? )

 

And while we're on the subject of football ( soccer ), just to show how far-reaching the consequences of the Brexit decision are...

European teams are only allowed so many non--EU players.

G. Bale has now become a non-EU player, so Real Madrid has too many, and will need to adjust their roster accordingly.

Edited June 25, 2016 by MigL

[DimaMazin]

There is plentiful of jobs in the UK, otherwise emigrants would not be able to earn money.

But they're nasty, stupefying, not well paid, the one that UK natives do not want.

Without emigrants you will have to take them, whether you want or not.

Plates in fish&chips must be clean, whether you want or not.

Migrants wash dishes for bankers. Scientists do not have money to have time for science. End of the idiocy. Edited June 25, 2016 by DimaMazin

[Delta1212]

 

But sometimes the "will of the population" is just wrong.

 

Democracy doesn't promise that the right answer will be implemented, just a popular one.

 

It is not and never has been about intelligent or even good government. Democracy's sole positive quality over other forms of government is that it acts as a check on the accumulation and abuse of power by tyrants. That's literally it. And on its own, that is a critically important feature.

 

But if you're anticipating that democracy should otherwise have better outcomes than other forms of government beyond that one thing that it does, you're kidding yourself.

[Strange]

Democracy doesn't promise that the right answer will be implemented, just a popular one.

 

It is not and never has been about intelligent or even good government. Democracy's sole positive quality over other forms of government is that it acts as a check on the accumulation and abuse of power by tyrants. That's literally it. And on its own, that is a critically important feature.

 

But if you're anticipating that democracy should otherwise have better outcomes than other forms of government beyond that one thing that it does, you're kidding yourself.

 

 

True. But there is no best or fairest form of democracy. However, I would say that direct representation is among the worst possible options (for the reasons given).

[Ten oz]

And the evidence for this is...

No, not really.

If one side makes their case based on something they admit was a lie (within hours of the outcome being announced) then it's not true democracy it's fraud.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eu-referendum-result-nigel-farage-nhs-pledge-disowns-350-million-pounds-a7099906.html

I could be wrong but it seems as though many were just looking to make a statement but didn't expect to actually win the vote. They were looking to have their feelings of fustration validated as substantive so that in the future they be taken more serious but did not expect to win. They assumed they could be reckless because cooler heads would be there to ensure all ended well. It didn't work out that way, the designated drivers simply didn't have enough seats for all the drunks, and now millions are asking for a due over. It is a shame that so many voted against their own self interest just to win a game of chicken. Hard to know where this goes now.

[John Cuthber]

, the designated drivers simply didn't have enough seats for all the drunks,

That's the best description I have seen so far.

 

 

 

I say the vote is binding.

 

It isn't, btw.

[Delta1212]

 

 

True. But there is no best or fairest form of democracy. However, I would say that direct representation is among the worst possible options (for the reasons given).

 

 

I'm not completely disagreeing, but just because it leads to ridiculous outcomes doesn't make it undemocratic. A referendum is probably one of the most democratic ways of doing anything. That's a fact that doesn't change just because it has the potential to lead to stupid outcomes.

[Enthalpy]

 

While [the European parliament] cannot initiate laws, they can reject proposals. I.e. laws have to seek approvals from the parliament, which are directly elected officials and the European council, which are also (directly, or indirectly) elected by their respective countries. Moreover, it also has special legislative procedures in limited areas, in which Council or Parliament decide. And they also holds power over another important tool: the budgetary authority. Finally, they also influence the European commission as the Parliament has to approve each proposed member as well as the President. And it actually can dismiss the commission,- using a two-third majority. So it can actually do all those things, except initiate laws outside of the special legislative procedures.

 

OK, I was wrong. Essentially outdated.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament#Legislative_procedure

The Parliament can veto many proposals by the Commission, but it can't decide alone nor take the initiative, in most cases.

Though, I suspect that Wiki's description refers to regulations, laws and directives. There must be other institutional acts for which the Commission needs no approval from the Parliament and can't be vetoed.

========================

 

"Referendum not democratic":

 

If it bypasses the properly elected representatives.

If a quarter of the population can impose their will on the rest.

 

If the majority of those happily admit they don't understand the issues.

 

Bypassing representatives is an improvement of democracy.

 

If half of a population doesn't vote, they should blame themselves and nobody else. Anyway, nobody should suppose that those who didn't vote would have had a different opinion.

 

Be reassured that the representatives don't understand the issues neither.

But sometimes the "will of the population" is just wrong.

 

This way of thinking is dangerous. I know very well that accepting a vote opposed to your strong opinion is hard, but it's the only way.

 

Just consider that if some better-knowing person shall decide rather than the majority, you'll probably not be this person, and this person is very likely to decide what you dislike and what the majority dislikes.

 

So, the proper way for democracy to work is that even when the people is wrong, the people is still right.

========================

 

I wonder about the EU import tax. It's not universally known, but pretty much every good entering the EU is taxed, by 19% if memory serves - a LOT of money.

 

Presently, many overseas companies have some bureaus in the UK to receive the goods and sell or dispatch them in the EU. And since - please correct if I'm wrong - this tax goes to the country where a good lands first, it makes huge incomes for the UK budget.

 

With an exit, these companies would reconsider their European location, and anyway, the tax would be collected by other member states.

 

At least for that aspect (which doesn't compensate the loss of a strong and close partner), the Brexit would bring some advantage to potential entry and contact point countries: Netherlands, Belgium, Luxemburg, and because of its size, Germany.

[Ten oz]

 

"Referendum not democratic":

 

 

This way of thinking is dangerous. I know very well that accepting a vote opposed to your strong opinion is hard, but it's the only way.

 

Just consider that if some better-knowing person shall decide rather than the majority, you'll probably not be this person, and this person is very likely to decide what you dislike and what the majority dislikes.

 

So, the proper way for democracy to work is that even when the people is wrong, the people is still right.

========================

I think the opposite is true. It is dangerous to assume popular sentiment should always be accepted. Any number of outrageous abuses and mistakes have accorded with the majorities consent. Sometime it is important for those in power to slow the wheels and provide time for the mood of a nation to select. Despite majority support in the U.S. to invade Iraq it was a mistake. Emotions were high after 9/11 we made a lot of mistakes. The Admin we had at the time exploited the mood of the country rather than encouraging us to take time. The result was torture, patriot act, 2 wars, and etc.

 

In the case of Brexit the Parliament should delay, there can be another vote, prudence is not contrary to democracy. Saying "we voted so give it to us now" isn't how democracy works. Once people vote the the gov't is compelled to act towards the goal which was voted for. However if the goal is to run the country off the cliff the gov't would be smart to double check that running off a cliff is truly the will of the people. If it is such a good idea and the majority truly support it than support will still be there in 3 months, a year, 2 years, etc.

[MigL]

What about all this talk about Scotland already being in negotiations to stay in the EU ( its been clarified that they cannot veto the decision to leave ) ?

And what if the Scots have a referendum of their own ( also already in the works ) asking the people of the UK if they want to leave the EU at the risk of breaking up the UK ?

[michel123456]

Here an interesting anylisis from Ioannis Th. Mazis, Professor of Economic Geography and Geopolitics Theory of National University of Athens ( Ιωάννης Θ. Μάζης, Καθηγητής Οικονομικής Γεωγραφίας και Γεωπολιτικής Θεωρίας του Εθνικού και Καποδιστριακού Πανεπιστημίου Αθηνών )

 

 

Title of the article the enormous responsibilities of Berlin

Google translate of the last part

 

Let us not forget that in order to achieve the accession of Britain to the then EEC submitted an application on 9 August 1961, whose adoption has encountered two strong veto of General de Gaulle: the first on 14 January 1963 and the second on November 27 1967. The elder leader believed that "the nature, structure and the reality of Great Britain is different from that of Europe" and he understood the mainland future absorption of the then EEC from the hopper NATO and US hegemony. Why then not arisen these "anti-German style ', but instead the proud Old Albion ... changed up to its name, self humiliated, not to" disturb "the French Republic, which was the province in the north called" Brittany";

The answers to these questions are simple: Then, the entry of the UK into the EEC was done with the blessing of Washington and NATO, just as feared by the elder French leader, to "keep Russia out, America in and Germany down "during the first NATO Secretary general statement (1952-1957), Sir Hastings Lionel Ismay. An objective which was achieved by deputy the United Kingdom and "educator democratic" France.

Now, however, things changed. The US notice that Germany "autonomy" and promotes hegemonic aspirations in Europe, crushing the peoples of the South, is working on gas transportation with the Russian Federation and Washington, which expects concrete facilities internationally by Germany and not it has now afford to "keep Germany down", reinforcing the economic malaise -in substantially- "the educator" (France), fret! There can therefore continue to offer the prestige of the largest and one of the two nuclear forces in Europe, the new-egemonical behaving Berlin. Did not, therefore, nothing to intervene interim financial ways to reverse yesterday's developments. Nor COULD.

Germany Messrs Schäuble and Merkel (in that order) must take the message and understand that mediatically promoted pompously on "extreme right", "Islamophobia", "xenophobia", "germanofobia" etc. may not meet the failed hegemonic policy that destroys the EU and inspires loathing European peoples. The Berlin responsibilities are huge, let's understand. It is the third time that will lead Europe to dissolution, with enormous implications for international peace and security. Folks do not react so until 2008. Let us ask in Berlin, but frankly, with hand on heart (and not raised ...), "why" suddenly the peoples of Europe "lost its mind."

the full article in Greek here. (Google translate works not so bad)

[Strange]

 

 

I'm not completely disagreeing, but just because it leads to ridiculous outcomes doesn't make it undemocratic. A referendum is probably one of the most democratic ways of doing anything. That's a fact that doesn't change just because it has the potential to lead to stupid outcomes.

 

I don't agree that is a "fact". It is an opinion based on a particular definition of "democracy".

This way of thinking is dangerous. I know very well that accepting a vote opposed to your strong opinion is hard, but it's the only way.

 

It is not about it being against my opinion. Unless you think "genocide is wrong" is just a matter of opinion.

 

There are things that most people would agree are wrong that would become law in a totally defective system such as direct democracy.

 

 

So, the proper way for democracy to work is that even when the people is wrong, the people is still right.

 

That way of thinking IS dangerous. We have historical examples to prove it.

 

Morality is not a matter of popular opinion.

[Delta1212]

You're saying that the definition of democracy is an opinion but that a value judgement about whether something is right or wrong, and in fact morality in general, is a fact and not an opinion?

[Strange]

You're saying that the definition of democracy is an opinion but that a value judgement about whether something is right or wrong, and in fact morality in general, is a fact and not an opinion?

 

Not really, no.

 

There is no absolute definition of right or wrong and similarly, no absolute definition of the best form of democracy.

 

However, there are things that all reasonable people would consider wrong (e.g. genocide). As such, I find it hard to agree with a definition of "best" to a democratic system that could lead to that result.

 

I would prefer a definition of best that was based on protecting the rights of minorities, for example. Or giving some power to all groups, perhaps locally or based on their relative numbers.

 

But just saying direct democracy is best because it is direct seems a little ... hmmm.... naive? misguided? idealistic?

[Delta1212]

Who said "best" though? I said it was the most democratic. Which, a straight vote by the people is the most democratic. That doesn't mean that it's the best form of democracy or the one most likely to lead to good results.

 

But it's certainly the most democratic.

[CharonY]

 

OK, I was wrong. Essentially outdated.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament#Legislative_procedure

The Parliament can veto many proposals by the Commission, but it can't decide alone nor take the initiative, in most cases.

Though, I suspect that Wiki's description refers to regulations, laws and directives. There must be other institutional acts for which the Commission needs no approval from the Parliament and can't be vetoed.

 

 

I think that is what I am getting at. The role of the voters is vastly underappreciated, considering that ultimately they are one of the balancing tools to the commission. Also I took a quick view through the powers of the EU commission a bit ago and there seems very limited things that they can do without another body (like executive oversight of the budget I think?). So it appears that their powers may be overestimated. Together it gives potential voters the idea that their vote does not matter, while factually it actually does.

[imatfaal]

 

I think that is what I am getting at. The role of the voters is vastly underappreciated, considering that ultimately they are one of the balancing tools to the commission. Also I took a quick view through the powers of the EU commission a bit ago and there seems very limited things that they can do without another body (like executive oversight of the budget I think?). So it appears that their powers may be overestimated. Together it gives potential voters the idea that their vote does not matter, while factually it actually does.

 

Exactly - the mis-information purveyed by the campaigns was verging on the criminal; in a more easily prosecuted arena - if you had it in sales literature it would constitute good evidence for fraudulent misrepresentation