Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: this_feature_currently_requires_accessing_site_using_safari
oh stop it. there is little difference between stupid EU politicians or stupid British politicians. they both shouldn't be in politics.
you should be blaming them not the whole EU.
Undemocratic?
That's funny, I remember voting in EU elections.
Right, in that case there must be no difference between a stupid politician that is elected by a democratic system and accountable to it, and a stupid dictator.
Because of course, the cornerstone of politics is faith in individual politicians, and not the checks and balances of the democratic system. Gimme a break.
I thought that was the essence of democracy, silly me!I don't. In any case, having the right to vote does not make a system democratic,
Matter of opinion. Do you consider Major's first two years of government to have been unrepresentative of the people too?and in no way, shape or form does our current government represent the people but funnily enough I remember voting in the general election.
And this video should be required viewing for all.
well philosophically there is a difference, but practically they are gonna screw you no matter what you say.
i've seen the video and the only thing i can comment is the hilarious legislation procedure, where people just trow up arms and the guy gives a quick stare and decides the vote. that is actually outrageous, but sadly this kind of bullshit is going on everywhere.
I thought that was the essence of democracy, silly me!
It's at least as democratic as the UK's government system. Moreso in some ways.
Matter of opinion. Do you consider Major's first two years of government to have been unrepresentative of the people too?
It's how government and parliament works in the UK, if you think it should change that's another topic altogether.
It's nothing new, just the same old anti-EU intensely melodramatic scare mongering that's always been around.
I do somewhat agree with you here, but what's the solution? Entrance exams before standing as an MP? That wouldn't be entirely democratic either.The essence of democracy is representative government. A democracy without checks and balances is not a valid democracy. A government which is run based on pure self-interest and not held accountable to the people is not democratic. It's fair to say that our government is a very long way from being truly democratic. As I mentioned in the above post though, the bigger concern is competence. 99% of politician are completely incompetent - the business of government is supposed to be about running the country, but these days it's just a bullshit ideological battleground.
Having laypeople for politicians might have worked in the days when government was small, but it doesn't work now.
Going back to the above, a supranational supergovernment can never be representative either. The entire concept is undemocratic, and serves no purpose other than to consolidate the powerbase of those who pull the strings.
The government has been becoming more and more centralised since the start of the 20th century, you can't exactly blame it on Labour alone.No government elected by our system is truly representative - but none are worse than New Labour. As I'm sure you know, the power is much more centralised within the cabinet under Blair's "reforms", and MPs from opposing parties have much less opportunity to derail Labour's plans.
What's melodramatic about it? Where's the scare-mongering?
I do somewhat agree with you here, but what's the solution? Entrance exams before standing as an MP? That wouldn't be entirely democratic either.
The government has been becoming more and more centralised since the start of the 20th century, you can't exactly blame it on Labour alone.
My point still stands that the EU government is at least as democratic as what the British public have been ruled by several centuries. The fact that it's basically becoming an expanded version (to X degree) including other countries doesn't mean we're going to be under the rule of a dictatorship.
The music? The emotive language? The narrow focus and misleading statements? The visual cues such as the robot?
And yet by making that a requirement you would restrict candidates more to the middle classes. How would you get the traditional (OLD) Labour type candidates elected?As I suggested above, there should be a requirement for any potential MP to have a certain amount of relevant life experience and success within a commercial or managerial function in order to be able to stand for office.
And what about the many pertinent facts?
And yet by making that a requirement you would restrict candidates more to the middle classes. How would you get the traditional (OLD) Labour type candidates elected?
I was objecting to the presentation (some were very misleading) and selection, most of the facts are accurate.
Like how they says the UK pays 14 billion and gets 4 billion back directly, not counting rebates - says they'll discuss rebates later and then only mention rebates in respect to France. Britain get another 3bn per year in rebates, but ofc that wouldn't be dramatic enough for that video.
As for the purpose of the EU? I'm not the biggest fan of it ever (though I do object to you and others calling it undemocratic or dictatorial, which I disagree with). However I see it as helping other nations (such as former Soviet states) develop, improve the living conditions of their people, and eventually improve the worlds economy.
Direct tangible benefits to the UK? Low. Long-term benefits to the UK? Medium. Long-term benefits to humanity in general? High.
What's more important, being British and having the people of your nation have a slightly better standard of living now by pulling out of the EU and having that money spent elsewhere, or having people of many nations have a far better standard of living in the long term?
I know which I consider more important, I'm also fairly sure I know which you'd consider to be more important - and there lies our main difference I suspect.
Vote whatever way you want, believe what you want but don't spread biased rabid 'documentaries' like that pretending that the EU is the souce of all ills.
You mentioned "middle class" before I did. (nyah nyah etc)I don't think the concept of class has any relevance in today's society. Primarily it signifies the distinction between people who follow a skills-based career and people who follow a knowledge-based career, but our entire economy is now based upon knowledge work. Indeed, there are a great many office jobs that are lesser paid and more boring than working on a production line, and plumbers and the like make a hell of a lot of money.
There is nothing to define someone as "working class" and prevent them from doing something that's "middle class", or vice versa. Hell, I went from being a civil servant, to being a recruitment consultant, to being a motorcycle despatch rider to working in IT sales.
In any case, the job of a politician is increasingly to lead, to manage, to make decisions - the same kind of responsibilities successful "middle-class" people have, as you put it. I don't see what on earth could ever qualify a miner, a cleaner or a carpenter to balance the demanding and academic workload of politics. The world just doesn't work like that anymore.
Like I said, that's where we differ. But please don't try to assert that because it's wrong in your opinion that it's "empirically" bad - it is intended to help people, just not ones you feel you should.Well, yes, Britain exists to serve British citizens, not foreign citizens. That's the entire point of the concept of nationhood. I really have no interest in handing over our own hard-won freedoms, democratic oversight and wealth to an organisation in order to redistribute them in some kind of bizarre communist exercise.
Hey, I'd have complained if you'd linked us that kind biased shit instead. Two wrongs don't make a right.Far more biased shit comes out of the government propaganda machine on a daily basis. There's nothing majorly wrong with the video.
You mentioned "middle class" before I did. (nyah nyah etc)
Like I said, that's where we differ. But please don't try to assert that because it's wrong in your opinion that it's "empirically" bad - it is intended to help people, just not ones you feel you should.
Hey, I'd have complained if you'd linked us that kind biased shit instead. Two wrongs don't make a right.
What kind of response is this? Why is it relevant to us that you had the chance to vote in EU elections, but couldn't be bothered?I don't.
I just realised why.I don't. In any case, having the right to vote does not make a system democratic, and in no way, shape or form does our current government represent the people but funnily enough I remember voting in the general election.
The European Parliament election, 2004 was the UK part of the European Parliament election, 2004. It was held on 10 June.
The latest election to the post of Mayor of London took place on June 10, 2004.
I just realised why.
Interesting...
In the same vein that the government regularly makes unpopular or controversial announcements on the same day of a major event in order to keep the public ignorant, I'm guessing it's not a coincidence.
Possibly.
I'm not sure though, I mean I'd think that it would have a much lesser effect outside of London.
London voter turnout was still about the same as the national average. Would it have been higher otherwise maybe?
Perhaps it didn't have a huge effect on turnout, but it's easier for Londoners to forget if overshadowed by the Mayoral election?
Who knows. I'm just happy I solved the mystery.
So if anything, Labour's conspiring to keep you out of EU elections rather than the EU trying to be undemocratic. Gasp!
Maybe.
The EU is undemocratic, vote or no vote. I've yet to hear anyone cite a single benefit to us from EU membership.
It's undemocratic although you can vote? Clearly I need to read the rest of the thread.
Not wanting to be a backseat moderator, but what's with all the red ken stuff up there? I thought we were talking about the EU.
Are those two sentences supposed to be related or simply tangental, like the biking story?
As I said, I believe the EU is at least as democratic as Britain - not perfect but actually kinda average for our times.
Not related, no, but you're all grilling me about this and yet noone has given even a single example of something we have to gain from being part of the EU. Indeed, noone has made anything more than a minor disagreement with the content of the video and I consider the mere facts within to be nothing short of alarming and proof enough that we should have no further part in the EU.
I don't find it alarming. Nothing I didn't already know beyond a few minor details.
*big rants about motorcycles and cyclists*
*points to the thread title*
You're right, democracy is dead. The cyclist lobbyists killed it.
Clearly. Because the EU Parliament has a big sign on the door saying 'No Brits Allowed'...
That's not really a very good analogy.
The EU is a pan-national conglomerate that tries to ensure equal representation among nationstates and does not claim ultimate sovereignty except to the extent that they all participate. Britain is one nationstate among others, nominally equal.
Parliament is a national government institution of one country and Ireland is another country entirely. Parliament claims ultimate sovereignty over all local governments in the UK.
The EU lets all the citizens of all its memberstates vote for their nations' representatives.
Parliament does not let Irish citizens be represented in the UK parliament.
The difference is the UK retains its sovereignty - it controls its tax income and defends/polices its territories. The day the UK loses those rights you can complain - today, you don't have a leg to stand .... not even taking into account 1) the UK democratically elects EU reps and national reps that make decisions in Europe and 2) there is nothing binding about EU decisions - the UK signed up to the laws and regulations, and is free to walk away from them as well although it is not in their interest to do so.
And finally the big picture - # European wars in 50 years before EEC = 2 world wars and multiple minor conflicts. # European wars after EC founded = Zero.
But it's still not a valid comparison at all. Parliament has ultimate sovereignty, and the UK is 'united' under the banner of England and her Queen...for the comparison with the EU to stand scrutiny, the UK would have to be an entirely collaborative organisation sitting above and regarding as equal the sub-nations of Ireland, Scotland, England and Wales.I meant in terms of whether Irish interests would be better represented if it were part of the UK. I think the answer to that would logically have to be a resounding "no", and exactly the same applies to a British government being able to make better decisions for Britain than a European government could.
We have a different culture and a different way of doing things than other European countries, this cannot possibly work. The EU doesn't discriminate in this way; they pass a law and it must be applied across all member states, no matter how inane it may be.
We certainly wouldn't have the economy we do now if the EU decided we have to adopt the French way of doing things and have a maximum working week of 35 hours. Irrespective of whether that is a better lifestyle or not, that's not the way we as a powerhouse economy do things, it's not the way we work, and we should not have to conform to the way other countries do things purely on the basis of...well, ****, I have absolutely no idea of the logic behind "EU harmonisation".
But it's still not a valid comparison at all. Parliament has ultimate sovereignty, and the UK is 'united' under the banner of England and her Queen...for the comparison with the EU to stand scrutiny, the UK would have to be an entirely collaborative organisation sitting above and regarding as equal the sub-nations of Ireland, Scotland, England and Wales.
Your claim that EU law is some impersonal blanket standard stamped across the face of all the poor member states ignores that not only do are those laws decided by the individual member states, but that the representatives who do the deciding are all democratically elected - our elected leaders, and our elected MEPs. For the 35-hour week to be implemented across the Union, the member states would have to go for it, and even if they did, and we didn't, we could still pull out.
And if that democracy is imperfect, how, and why, and shouldn't you be criticising that particularly, rather than the EU as an organisation?
Similarly, if nobody knows what is happening in the EU, and people are too apathetic or too unknowledgeable to properly think on and vote on the issues, whose fault is that?
This is not America in Franklin's time. We did not get colonised and shafted into signing up to a foreign institution in which we have no say. And if did, or if we don't, it does not seem like the problem rests with the EU itself, but with our own government.