It’s self determining (and self interested) but not really a democracy in any meaningful sense. For one thing its legislation is originated by the commission, an unelected house. The “parliament” is largely a rubber stamping exercise for the commission and is far too divorced from voters to be truly democratic or accountable.
Because you do not like a specific democratic system, it does not mean it isn't a democracy. The commission is elected by the council (made up of the elected governments from each member state) and approved by the parliament (made up of the elected MEP from each member state).
In the UK, technically our government isn't elected (by that I mean the cabinet and those who conduct government business - sure they are elected MPs for a constituency but no one voted for Hunt to in charge of our Foreign policy), neither is the civil service etc.
On a more fundamental level the EU’s “citizens” are already citizens or independent nation states with a much long history. The vast majority of whom will identify as “French”, “German” etc. rather than “European”. Personally speaking I’m British (English), but I do not consider myself “European” and have absolutely no desire to do so.
But surely that argument applies to the UK too? Many people from Scotland / Wales etc count themselves first as Scottish or Welsh, and only British as a secondary thing (similar to how many of us feel about being European).
It can never be democratic when:
1. It lacks an engaged electorate, with a sense of belonging and participation;
2. The people elected are not the originators of its legislation.
So for one, what counts as an engaged electorate? If we had a low turn out at a general election, does that make the election not democratic because people aren't engaged?
And for 2, mostly that isn't the case for the UK government either. Hell the Lords can propose legislation in this country, and the people who make up the government (aka ministers and PM) don't actually need to be elected MPs.
Moreover the EU’s self declared trajectory is one of “ever closer union”, as originally stated in the Treaty of Rome and restated in the Maastricht Treaty. That is something fundamentally incompatible with the continued existence of its member states as independent countries.
Unless the self declared aim is a united Europe, I don't see why it is incompatible.
Sure there are some who want that (you'd be stupid to deny that), but is that everyone involved? I doubt it. You can have closer integration with individual member countries still existing.
It is this failure to account for the difference between its member states that have led to the project’s failure: the single currency, member states losing control of their own monetary policy (thank God we didn’t join); the recent immigration debacle; and now BREXIT. And despite all the above we still never hear any acknowledgement from the EU itself that things have gone wrong and it needs to change.
I am not sure how the EU "fails to account for the difference between its member states" when many member states have specific opt outs, exemptions, special clauses etc. Surely that is a perfect example of the EU actually paying attention to the differences?
The arguments about qualifications probably got a little childish, but I get fed up of the sneering assumption that all leave voters are ill educated, thick etc. and only voted leave to stick it to the man. Some were, of course, but there are lots of us who know quite a bit about the subject and made an informed choice to vote to leave.
Tbh can say the same for the other way around too. Especially the whole "enemy of the people" stuff that went around thanks to the Mail.
