Examples of the EU's anti-democratic tendancies

dutchguylivingintheuk

Well-Known Member
So what should have happened in 1939?

Was it all our fault again? Perhaps we should have been more forward thinking and got one up on Germany by working with France to start an organisation called something like the Union of Europe, or the UE.
The name EU is not wrong in my view the main issue is that they try to govern everything while it is not working. Getting large companies from the uk for example is a ''game'' on high levels between the Netherlands, France, Germany and The Uk with taxdeals for example to lure them in. One of the objectives was to minimize this clearly this has failed and i don't thing they will ever succeed. So then you have two directions you can go a ''ever closer wording union'' largely what we have now seemingly to big to fail. The banks came crashing down in 2008 from that illusion i hope the eu has a softer landing.

The second is only the absolute necessary, so you might create a shengen like construction, with thing that come with that like ehic, european police forces working together etc. but you don't need an enormous Eu Parliament and so on, it will mainly stay like every country on it's own with some benefits for being in an international alliance. if you look at the business sector you see lots of those kind of example's with very close knit alliances which are very close to a full takeover or with alliance that are very simple and arrange basic formalities and that's it. Most Airlines are in a alliance of some sort for example.
 

Kajjal

Veteran
Location
Wheely World
It does not have anything to do with it. This is more about the technical side in terms of how do you efficiently and still securely check loads of goods. not about whether or not trade deals are in place and so on.
The key to any logistics and customs system are the terms of trade along with rules and regulations they are based on. In this case the UK is spending a significant amount to trade on worse terms, less efficiently and less competitively. In this case you are trying to pretend the key principles of the EU and WTO basic rules do not exist.
 
OP
Yellow Fang
Location
Reading
I'mm sorry but you need to expand on what you mean by 'no democratic means of repeal'.
Only the European Commision can propose laws. The European Parliament can amend, pass or reject laws that the European Commission drafts, but they cannot draft laws themselves, and they cannot repeal laws that were passed previously. They can call for it, but the Commission doesn't have to do it. The European Parliament's function is similar to the House of Lords. The European Commission are appointed, not elected.
That’s nonsense. Are you trying to say that no EU nation has a veto? The UK uses its veto more than any other nation. For example, the UK vetoing the EU’s plan to stop Chinese steel dumping in Europe to save their steel industries. Recently, British Steel’s gone bust and one reason being cited is Chinese steel dumping. Every EU nation has a veto, Lisbon does not change that.
 
OP
Yellow Fang
Location
Reading
There are one or two areas whether EU countries still have a veto. I think EU tax is one of them. We are under a lot of pressure to lose them. Most areas of decision making come under Qualified Majority Voting. Four member states representing at least 35% of the weighted vote need to object to a proposal to bring it down.
 

Kajjal

Veteran
Location
Wheely World
Only the European Commission can propose laws. The European Parliament can amend, pass or reject laws that the European Commission drafts, but they cannot draft laws themselves, and they cannot repeal laws that were passed previously. They can call for it, but the Commission doesn't have to do it. The European Parliament's function is similar to the House of Lords. The European Commission are appointed, not elected.
That's correct to a point but the European commission is put in place by the representatives of the democratically elected governments of the member states. Also as mentioned the individual states have the power of Veto to block as needed. This means the EU is based on cooperation and agreement with 28 individual states working together after centuries of constant military warfare.

Its good you are reading this in detail as a lot is not obvious and has been mispresented in the UK media for decades. The EU is not a government but a highly integrated advanced trading block. The UK on its own has far , far more civil servants than the EU.
 

Kajjal

Veteran
Location
Wheely World
There are one or two areas whether EU countries still have a veto. I think EU tax is one of them. We are under a lot of pressure to lose them. Most areas of decision making come under Qualified Majority Voting. Four member states representing at least 35% of the weighted vote need to object to a proposal to bring it down.
To do that requires a unanimous vote, the smaller states currently will not agree to it. There are many changes suggested in various area's of the EU but they cannot be imposed unilaterally without agreement.
 

The Crofted Crest

Senior Member
The EU is not a government but a highly integrated advanced trading block.
The EU is a talking shop, where heads of government get together to discuss things of mutual concern. Once they have agreed on those things they get their own ministers and the EU's civil servants to carry them out. This has always been misrepresented to the UK populous. People who are opposed to the EU complain it is acting as a superstate and then criticise it for not having the powers or structures of a superstate.
 

HobbesOnTour

Über Member
Location
The Netherlands
I don’t see the EU as being particularly undemocratic, or at least no less democratic that what is already out there.

The recent kerfuffle about the divvying out of the top jobs is distasteful, certainly and a PR disaster when considered alongside the arguments for Brexit, but it is no worse than goes on in any Parliament, especially those used to coalition government.

I don’t for a second believe that there are no “deals” and jobs being offered to supporters (and threats also for opponents!) in the current Tory leadership campaign. Of course people are being offered positions for their support.

In fact, I believe that the lack of Coalition government in the UK is a factor in this discussion. Other governments are used to hammering out a deal with their opponents. The UK simply is not.

I am bemused by those that refer to the EU doing this or the EU doing that. The UK is currently a member of the EU. It is not some external beast. It is a group of which the UK is a significant member.

I’m not sure the UK ever benefited as much as it could have from its membership, and again, I wonder if this has something to do with a difference in attitude to coalition government? A significant number of European governments are used to working as coalitions, a consensus model, whereas the UK attitude is more binary. In language terms, the UK attitude is to see things in terms of victory or defeat, whereas more consensus minded language talks in terms of progress or regression.

It has been suggested many times that Ireland and the UK joining the EEC in 1973 was a major influential factor in improving relations between the 2 countries and laying the cooperative groundwork for the Peace Process. Simply put, for the first time, the Irish and UK diplomats found themselves, more often than not, working together as opposed to against each other, leading to bonds of understanding and trust that paid dividends years later.
Even when relations were icy, both governments were compelled to at least meet and talk and when for political reasons a head to head meeting was not possible, regular European meetings allowed for informal contacts.

I can’t help believing that similar things occurred between different countries and that this is one of the huge, but intangible benefits of a European Community.

It might not be perfectly democratic, but given that different countries have different democratic systems I really don’t see how a system could be devised that would be seen as 100% democratic by all countries in the union.

A quick study of 20th century European history demonstrates the alternative. I’ll take imperfect democracy, thank you. And if it bothers me enough, I’ll do something about it. From the inside.
 

Rusty Nails

We remember
Location
Here and there
That is an extremely interesting question, though unfortunately continuing a tangent to the subject of the thread! One thing is sure - Hitler completely outwitted the democracies with his pact with Stalin, meaning he wouldn't have to fight a war on two fronts. That said, I have seen it argued that Britain at that time was at best a half-democracy. A settled elite doing its own thing in its own world, minding it own Empire.
Going back to the thirties I think that described most European countries, especially the former colonisers of other countries.. The World was even more imperfect then.
 
OP
Yellow Fang
Location
Reading
That's correct to a point but the European commission is put in place by the representatives of the democratically elected governments of the member states. Also as mentioned the individual states have the power of Veto to block as needed. This means the EU is based on cooperation and agreement with 28 individual states working together after centuries of constant military warfare.

Its good you are reading this in detail as a lot is not obvious and has been mispresented in the UK media for decades. The EU is not a government but a highly integrated advanced trading block. The UK on its own has far , far more civil servants than the EU.
It's more than an advanced trading block. Trading blocks don't have their own parliaments, law courts, currency, and army. The EU want their own defence services now. We still do have a few areas of veto. They are fewer in number than they were. It is not clear what they all are. The EU high officials want to reduce them still further. Even if it is not a superstate now, that is the way it is going.
 
OP
Yellow Fang
Location
Reading
MEPs were tearing into Donald Tusk for the way the top jobs were dished out.


The European Parliament is not as boring as I thought.
 
Last edited:

Kajjal

Veteran
Location
Wheely World
It's more than an advanced trading block. Trading blocks don't have their own parliaments, law courts, currency, and army. The EU want their own defence services now. We still do have a few areas of veto. They are fewer in number than they were. It is not clear what they all are. The EU high officials want to reduce them still further. Even if it is not a superstate now, that is the way it is going.
Have read of the history of how the EU evolved. Once they removed tariffs they were surprised how little effect it had to trade compared to their expectations. The differing regulations and standards between countries were then shown to be a very significant factor effecting trade. This is why Thatcher and many others developed the single market which removed these barriers and it became the advanced trading block it is today. For the single market to work the EU needed a single point to agree and enforce laws / regulations etc. and this is where the institutions come from. This close cooperation helped the Irish and UK to work together frequently and gave the platform for the good Friday agreement and other similar examples.

You mention the EU becoming a super state and currently that is not being supported by the member states who would have to unanimously agree to this. If that was to happen a referendum would be needed as it is a very significant change. Brexit after three years has failed as most of its supporters can only criticise and complain, to date none have produce a detailed real world plan which is why we are still in the EU.
 
OP
Yellow Fang
Location
Reading
New Green MEP Magid Magid says he's disappointed with the European Parliament (see link). Here are some of the good bits.

Next to nobody in Brussels has any clue what the European Union truly stands for — beyond a flag and an anthem — and more crucially, where it is heading.

Making a tangible impact on constituents’ lives is apparently not what being an MEP is all about.

MEPs live in a bubble — one where we celebrate politicians who bailed out bankers, blamed migrants and imposed crippling levels of austerity.

In Brussels in particular, we need more transparency in the way we make decisions. Our institutions are plagued with convoluted customs, hidden handshakes and backdoor bargaining.

How can we reject the accusations leveled against the European elite that we are out of touch, when the top dogs in our Parliament and Commission are chosen through obscure quid-pro-quo arrangements agreed over Champagne and truffles in Brussels' finest hotel lobbies?
 

dutchguylivingintheuk

Well-Known Member
Have read of the history of how the EU evolved. Once they removed tariffs they were surprised how little effect it had to trade compared to their expectations. The differing regulations and standards between countries were then shown to be a very significant factor effecting trade.
So they just needed better negotiators.(negotiations start in what's now called member state to for example come to an agreement about whats standards to expect/demand. )Claiming you need an pan-european goverment for that is BS there's tons of examples proving otherwise.
 
Top Bottom