finneyb":jgistopv said:
Cheshirechappie":jgistopv said:
Rhyolith":jgistopv said:
Again, no one has offered anything beyond speculation to why leaving is of benefit.
Yes we have - it's about being governed by people we elect and can (collectively) hold to account through the ballot box.
All MPs, from whom the government decision-makers are drawn, are elected, and if enough of the electorate feel that a government isn't adequately serving the country, it can be changed - as happened in 1979, 1997 and 2010.
The EU decisions are made by Commissioners (appointed, not elected), and by the Council of Ministers, of which we can influence one out of 28. Consequently, no country's electorate can hold the EU to account through the ballot box.
I'm not buying this lack of democracy argument wrt EU. I see little difference between the UK and the EU systems in terms of effective democracy.
UK has the Civil Service - EU has the European Commission; it is the Civil Service who basically run the country under the political regime, as does the European Commission for the EU . The electorate doesn't appoint Permanent Secretaries in the Civil Service, why should they appoint Commissioners? The appointment of both Permanent Secretaries and Commissioners are subject to a political veto - Select Committee in the UK and European Parliament for the EU.
A single constituency in the UK cannot vote down the Govt and neither can it in the EU. So effective democracy in the UK is some distance from the individual voter, as it is in the EU.
The UK Parliament has political party groupings - so does the EU Parliament. Your MP or MEP needs to toe the party/group line in most cases in both systems. Of course the MP/MEP will have had a say in deciding the party line - which will be a compromise in both cases. The individual voter has little or no say in either case, either just votes one way or the other out of habit or to the party that appears to protect his/her interests. The fact that MEPs are elected on a proportional representational basis is a UK decision for the UK - personally I would prefer to see who I am electing and would support that change although I suspect it would make little difference to the outcome of the election.
The Council of Ministers is equivalent to the UK's Cabinet in that both are formed of senior ministers - how often does a Cabinet member get voted off by the UK electorate ?
There is of necessity far more consensus with EU decisions than with the UK system where the Govt has a majority of MPs and can basically get anything through the Commons if the majority is large enough. I see the need to have more consensus being a positive requiring professionalism and discussion as opposed to the primary school playground antics we see at Westminster.
EU democracy isn't an issue, I agree it works differently than the UK but difference isn't necessarily a bad thing.
Remain, there is nothing to be gained by leaving.
Brian
With respect, Brian - I'm afraid I must disagree.
The Westminster system has evolved over several centuries. We (the electorate) return an MP for each constituency. When we vote, we know which party the candidates align themselves with, and we know who the leader of each party is. Thus we can take into account when voting who is likely to end up forming a government, and who is likely to be PM. The party with most MPs forms the government, the Ministers being selected from elected MPs. If the party with most seats has a majority, it can govern on it's own, if not it can either form a formal coalition with one or more smaller parties, or reach an arrangement for support in voting on matters in the House of Commons.
Ministers then propose legislation, and present Bills to the House of Commons. Parliament scrutinises that legislation in three ways - first debate and vote in the house, then scrutiny by Parliamentary Committee (cross-party, and made up of sitting MPs), then second debate and vote. If the Bill receives a majority, it procedes to the Lords. The Lords also debate, scrutinise in committee and vote; they can delay Government Bills or return them to the Commons for ammendment, but cannot throw them out. If the Bill is voted through the Lords, it becomes law.
Thus, the elected chamber has primacy, but there are several checks in the system to scrutinise legislation before it becomes law.
The Civil Service exists to assist Ministers in draughting proposed legislation, and in implementing it. They take direction from Ministers, and can advise, but cannot instruct or over-ride the direction of Ministers. If they feel it necessary, when directed by a Minister against their advice, Civil Servants can request instruction in writing.
Thus, Ministers take the decisions and are accountable for them to the electorate. The civil service does as directed by the government of the day.
The EU system is different. The overall direction is set by the Council of Ministers, basically the Prime Minister (or equivalent) of each country. Thus we can elect only one minister. The Commission then acts on the directions of the Council of Ministers - Commissioners are appointed, and can't be held to account by any electorate. They can (and do), however, propose legislation. The European Parliament (elected MEPs) can in theory scrutinise legislation, but in practice rarely does so because there is far more legislation than time available - thus, things just go through on the nod. Thus, the electorate cannot hold to account those proposing legislation, and the elected chamber is only, in effect, a talking shop.
Thus , the Westminster system, having more scrutiny of legislation, and having those proposing and scrutinising it accountable to the electorate, is a far more democratic system.
By the way - Cabinet Ministers are sometimes elected out. The most famous example is probably Portillo, but in 2015 Cable, Alexander and Davey lost their seats - as did Ed Balls from the Shadow Cabinet.
(Edited to point out that the Lords can return a Bill to the Commons for amendment.)
Second edit to add - There's an exception to the scrutiny process for legislation through Westminster - EU Directives have to go straight on to the statute book without scrutiny, since our Treaty obligations mean that EU legislation has primacy over national legislation. Estimates vary how much law placed onto the national statute book is of EU origin and how much is national, but somewhere between 15% and 75% (depending on who you believe) is of EU origin.
I can't help thinking that things would be more democratic if the national Parliaments had primacy over the EU, and EU law had to be scrutinised and if need be returned for amendment by national Parliaments. That ain't going to happen, though; it would take the EU far too long to get it's way if they allowed that, so the only way to ensure primacy of the National (elected) Parliament over the less democratic EU is to leave it.
