Should We Leave the EU?

[miami]

I just think it's a bit off that we have a situation where 100% of the population could vote for Green MEPs (for example) who theoretically wouldn't be able to pass any Green laws even with a mandate from the entire population of Europe.

Doesn't sound overly democratic to me, and that's before we even get to the ridiculously unfair allocation of MEPs which effectively means the vote of someone in a small EU country is worth nearly eleven times as much as the vote of someone in the UK. It makes our current constituency boundaries look positively egalitarian in comparison!

And if Scotland vote for 100% SNP votes and they can't make any laws?

Not only does Westminster have a voting spread of about 6:1 between constituencies, 50% of the voters in the country live in "safe seats", leading to a ridiculous situation where a party get over 10% of the vote but only 1 seat, another party gets undr 8% and gets 50 seats, and the party with all the power to both male and pass laws only has the support of 35% of the voters.

 

[Senex]

And if Scotland vote for 100% SNP votes and they can't make any laws?

Not only does Westminster have a voting spread of about 6:1 between constituencies, 50% of the voters in the country live in "safe seats", leading to a ridiculous situation where a party get over 10% of the vote but only 1 seat, another party gets undr 8% and gets 50 seats, and the party with all the power to both male and pass laws only has the support of 35% of the voters.

Absolutely! (But substitute "make" for "male", I think!)
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Do others think it a cause for concern that all the news media, broadcasters and press alike, seem to be presenting the referendum campaign as a battle purely within the Tory party and a possible leadership campaign by Johnson rather than something of massive cross-party significance? Or it is that the other parties are indeed largely sitting back and letting the Tories fight themselves to a split because that is what would be to their (the other parties') advantage in purely British political terms?

From the arguments that have been put forward in the public debate (which, along with our own thoughts and reading, seems to be all we have to go on -- there has been no local canvassing or leafleting so far), it is very hard to decide how to vote. In my case, heart strongly says remain, but head isn't really sure. The EU isn't a very attractive set-up as it is, but it's the best we've got, and far better than the sort of Little England Living in the Past that the Brexiters seem to want to offer us. I think that for me this is going to be one of those cases where heart wins out.

 

[Barn]

Do others think it a cause for concern that all the news media, broadcasters and press alike, seem to be presenting the referendum campaign as a battle purely within the Tory party and a possible leadership campaign by Johnson rather than something of massive cross-party significance? Or it is that the other parties are indeed largely sitting back and letting the Tories fight themselves to a split because that is what would be to their (the other parties') advantage in purely British political terms?

I suspect Labour are pleased that the Conservatives are dividing themselves into two but in fairness I don't think that they are deliberately sitting back and letting it happen for political gain. There will be a mixture of things at play such as:

• Cameron properly getting the most coverage as he is PM
• Corbyn (who as Leader of the Opposition should get almost as much coverage) seemingly deliberately taking a low-key role. I suspect this is by arrangement with Labour In due to his personal on-the-record ambivalence about / hostility to the EU, and his marmitesque quality with the voters.
• The fascination of the media with all things Boris.
• The media's love of party splits and infighting.
• Labour likely having a strategy of not responding when the discussion turns to immigration, because the permissive views of the party itself does not always chime well with its voting base.

 

[Senex]

Corbyn (who as Leader of the Opposition should get almost as much coverage) seemingly deliberately taking a low-key role. I suspect this is by arrangement with Labour In due to his personal on-the-record ambivalence about / hostility to the EU, and his marmitesque quality with the voters.

I suspect you may well be right with that. But in that case it's a pity that Labour In hasn't come up yet with as vocal an alternative figure as Labour Out has found in Gisela Stuart. Or is that vocal figure going to turn out to be Sadiq Khan? And there's nothing very much from the ScotNats and apparently nothing at all from the LibDems so far. (Maybe the ScotNats secretly want an Out vote on the strength of the English electorate so that they can demand their second referendum and have another go at independence.)

 

[Barn]

I suspect you may well be right with that. But in that case it's a pity that Labour In hasn't come up yet with as vocal an alternative figure as Labour Out has found in Gisela Stuart. Or is that vocal figure going to turn out to be Sadiq Khan? And there's nothing very much from the ScotNats and apparently nothing at all from the LibDems so far. (Maybe the ScotNats secretly want an Out vote on the strength of the English electorate so that they can demand their second referendum and have another go at independence.)

Well, Labour In appointed Alan Johnson. Whilst I don't agree with him on this, he is an altogether pleasant and reasonable man. Probably too pleasant and reasonable to win airtime against the 'meta-stories' of infighting, votes of no confidence, early general elections, etc.

Sadiq Khan could make a go of it as he is still in his honeymoon period. I suspect many of his supporters will already be committed Remain voters but he may have a role to play in encouraging voter registration.

Not being a consumer of Scottish media, I'm not sure about the SNP. I suspect they feature much more north of the border. One sad consequence of devoloution is that we hear very little of what goes on up there, absent an independence referendum.

The LibDems are in the ascendancy (it would be hard for them to be otherwise) but they are not yet a major contribution to the debate. I suspect there is an issue with them having the opposite problem to Corbyn. The LibDems, and Nick Clegg in particular, were so fervently pro-EU that their contributions do not seem to contribute much that would not already have been expected from them.

 

[richa2002]

Absolutely! (But substitute "make" for "male", I think!)
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Do others think it a cause for concern that all the news media, broadcasters and press alike, seem to be presenting the referendum campaign as a battle purely within the Tory party and a possible leadership campaign by Johnson rather than something of massive cross-party significance? Or it is that the other parties are indeed largely sitting back and letting the Tories fight themselves to a split because that is what would be to their (the other parties') advantage in purely British political terms?

From the arguments that have been put forward in the public debate (which, along with our own thoughts and reading, seems to be all we have to go on -- there has been no local canvassing or leafleting so far), it is very hard to decide how to vote. In my case, heart strongly says remain, but head isn't really sure. The EU isn't a very attractive set-up as it is, but it's the best we've got, and far better than the sort of Little England Living in the Past that the Brexiters seem to want to offer us. I think that for me this is going to be one of those cases where heart wins out.

Why is not being a self-governing, independent country and being dictated to the 'the best we've got'. This really seems like very weak reasoning where independence and democracy is the thing you're sacrificing. Are people really so scared of what it's like to be independent, as we were for hundreds of years? The EU isn't our mummy who we need to hold our hand. Seems there's a case of Stockholm Syndrome going on here!

 

[EM2]

Why is not being a self-governing, independent country and being dictated to the 'the best we've got'.

How are we 'being dictated to'?

 

[Gutfright]

And if Scotland vote for 100% SNP votes and they can't make any laws?

I have no idea what point you're trying to make here.

If Scotland votes 100% SNP to the Scottish parliament, then they can pass whatever laws they want.

If a minority of the UK votes for the SNP, then the SNP cannot make any laws that affect the whole of the UK. Not by themselves, anyway.

What's so unfair about that?

Not only does Westminster have a voting spread of about 6:1 between constituencies, ...

The largest constituency in the UK parliament is the Isle of Wight, with a population of 108,804. The smallest is the Western Isles, with a population of 21,769. The largest constituency is less than five times the size of the smallest.

But these island constituencies are outliers. 95% of constituencies have a population between 54,441 and 85,941.

Compare that to the EU. Malta gets one MEP for every 70,227 inhabitants. Britain gets one MEP for every 875,289 inhabitants. The vote of someone in Malta is worth more than the vote of eleven British people. Eleven!

The votes of someone in Finland or Slovakia is worth more than the vote of two British people. An Estonian voter is worth nearly four British voters according to the EU.

Even if you ignore the example of Malta as being an outlier, 95% of MEPs represent between 220,802 and 886,935 people. That's a hell of a spread. Whereas 95% of UK MPs represent constituencies of more or less the same size, each European MEP represents vastly differing numbers of people.

The facts simply aren't on your side, I'm afraid. The EU has managed to devise a system which is even less fair than our own. Bravo!

 

[miami]

Absolutely! (But substitute "make" for "male", I think!)

Bloody phones!

But yes, all the power sits with males too.

From the arguments that have been put forward in the public debate (which, along with our own thoughts and reading, seems to be all we have to go on -- there has been no local canvassing or leafleting so far), it is very hard to decide how to vote. In my case, heart strongly says remain, but head isn't really sure. The EU isn't a very attractive set-up as it is, but it's the best we've got, and far better than the sort of Little England Living in the Past that the Brexiters seem to want to offer us. I think that for me this is going to be one of those cases where heart wins out.

Yes, in the absence of any vision for what post-brexit would look like I can't vote for it. There's then the whole heart thing, are you an optimist that has a view of a better future and hope to make it happen, or are you a pessimist that wants to go hide under a rock?

It seems these are the key areas, and some facts I think apply.

Immigration
* There will be no reduction in the threat of terrorism to the UK, perhaps an increase from a lack of intelligence sharing
* There will be no reduction in illegal immigrants attempting to get to the UK via lorry or boat, perhaps an increase if France decides they won't want the hastle or bother of patroling the Calais area, and cancels the agreement to have the UK border in France, so the problem crops up in Folkstone rather than Calais.
* EU migrants contribute far more in tax receipts than they take
* There could theoretically be a reduction in EU, if we don't have to take free movement like Norway
* UK population growth consists of Natural Growth, EU migrant growth, and non-EU migrant growth. These 3 areas are about equal, so population will still be growing even if we leave the EU, by about 0.3% per year rather than 0.4% per year.
* There has been insufficient house buildings since the 1980s, social housing has been sold off, nothing has replaced it. The average house is now 10 times the average income.
* The number of refugees per head in the UK is far lower than that of Norway
* Since 2001 London's population has increased by 22%. The UK's population as a whole has increased by 10%, and that's a big problem for London and the south east. Successive governments have done little to iron this imbalance in the UKs economy
* Illegal workers from Eastern Europe existed in London pre-2005. Illegal mexican workers are the cornerstone of the US economy. Small businesses like illegal workers as they can pay cash in hand (thus cheaper), and the workers have no rights.

Turkey
* Turkey will only be able to become a member of the EU if the UK, Greece, and Cyprus (currently under military occupation by Turkey) agree to it
* Boris Johnson and Douglas Carswell are big fans of Turkey.

Trade
* The EU is an essential trading partner, we won't get a better deal with them than we do now
* The US is making more and more noises about moving a protectionist route
* China has been dumping steel, and getting into bed with them is a recipe for disaster

The NHS
* The UK population is getting older, living longer, and spending longer in expensive end-of-life healthcare
* There is no political will to take old people to pay for their care (high inheritance tax for example)
* This means the NHS budget per person needs to increase, meaning we need more tax payers
* The current government is against the NHS.
* Public healthcare of some sort is common across europe, although admittedly not to the same extent

TTIP
* TTIP is a trade agreement between the US and the EU
* The agreement will have to be passed by the EU government representitives (the council) and the EU population representitives (the parliament). Some nations (like France) also have laws saying their parliaments need to ratify it. The UK decided not to bother with this, but that's a UK measure.
* In common with the rest of the world, the US is moving towards a more protectionist and more nationalist view. Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders are against TTIP (although this is overshadowed by TPP), and TTIP will need ratification by Congress and the Senate, which with a popular uprising against free trade seems less and less likely.
* The UK government is in favour of TTIP, so will be looking to sign up to something similar anyway

Democracy
* By any measure the EU is more democratic than the UK, the argument is that Johnny Foreigner gangs up on the UK
* The EU Commission, which proposes laws, is selected by national governments and approved by the parliament.
* The UK Government is appointed by the Prime Minister, who is appointed by 51% of the party with 51% of the seats in parliament who were elected on 36% of the vote.
* The EU commission has no power to pass laws
* The UK government has all the power to pass laws
* EU law gets passed by a parliament elected by the people under a more representitive system than FPTP, requiring representatives of about 51% of the EU to agree. There are no parties, or groups, with anywhere near a majority, no way for party whips to threaten deselection (firing) if the member doesn't vote the right way
* It also gets passed by a council of national leaders (Cameron, Merkel, etc)
* For democracy to function properly, you need an informed population. We don't have that.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Why is not being a self-governing, independent country and being dictated to the 'the best we've got'. This really seems like very weak reasoning where independence and democracy is the thing you're sacrificing. Are people really so scared of what it's like to be independent, as we were for hundreds of years? The EU isn't our mummy who we need to hold our hand. Seems there's a case of Stockholm Syndrome going on here!

It seems to me this 'us being self-governing' argument is basically a fiction, because so many things don't respect international borders anyway:

• Living in London, I gather I often have to breathe in pollution that was created in - for example - The Ruhr in Germany.
• As has been highlighted recently with the Mossack-Fonseca leaks, money and capital rarely pays attention to national boundaries - individuals will move it around at will.
• Multinational companies will always (and from their point of view, quite reasonably), move their production to whichever country offers the best infrastructure/cheapest workers/etc.
• Criminals and terrorists likewise are not particularly concerned about boundaries (and for those who point to EU freedom of movement, and call for border controls: I have yet to see any border control or visa regulations that can (a) prevent terrorist propaganda on eg. social media from coming into the UK to indoctrinate vulnerable people, and (b) prevent well-funded terrorist groups from simply finding supporters who have good grounds for applying for a visa anyway).

All these problems require international solutions: Free trade areas that have common regulations to make sure businesses play fairly in the different countries, joint regulations on pollution, on tax evasion, common approaches to tackling international crime, etc. They simply cannot be addressed by individual countries saying in effect, we expect absolute sovereignty to manage all our own affairs. Demanding the kind of sovereignty that says you won't submit anything to a supranational body like the EU might feel good emotionally, but it often doesn't help to solve the actual problems we face in the World, and ultimately is likely to make us all worse off.

Of course that doesn't necessarily imply that the EU always gets things right or itself has perfect structures. I'm sure we can all think of many examples of where the EU appears to have got things wrong, or has interfered in things that arguably are better dealt with locally and shouldn't be the EU's concern. But it does imply that we are better off accepting the need in principle for having some things dealt with at an international level, and therefore to work within the EU to improve how the EU does things, and to try to fix some of the problems within the EU.

After all, I regard many of the decisions the UK Government has made in the last few years as pretty appalling (even worse than many decisions the EU has made!). I can even point to examples (such as housing) where the UK Government seems to be preventing the democratically elected local authorities from doing what needs to be done in the local area. But my response to that is to want to campaign to change what the UK Government does. I'm definitely not arguing that my local area should therefore withdraw from the UK!

 

[miami]

(Maybe the ScotNats secretly want an Out vote on the strength of the English electorate so that they can demand their second referendum and have another go at independence.)

They pretty much admitted that. It's a fine line, they don't want Scotland also voting out.

Here's a typical brexit voter:

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/675170/Brexit-Walworth-Family-EU-Referendum

"We live in fear. I live in Walworth, right on top of the East Street market. The last butcher has now gone – we've got halal.

"In a short period of time we've been absolutely inundated."

And perhaps she makes a valid point, but what has it to do with EU immigration? Are these Polish halal butchers? Italian? Spanish?

I suspect that they're second and third generation immigrants that have roots in the ex-commonwealth - Pakistan for example.

 

[Gutfright]

Democracy
* By any measure the EU is more democratic than the UK, the argument is that Johnny Foreigner gangs up on the UK

Not by any measure. Voter representation is distributed a hell of a lot more unequally in the EU than it is in the UK. Inhabitants of smaller countries are given a much, much louder voice than inhabitants of larger countries. How can that be more democratic?

* The EU commission has no power to pass laws
* The UK government has all the power to pass laws

The laws the UK passes have to conform to EU directives set by the EU commission (and approved by the EU parliament). A more accurate description would be "The UK government has all the power to pass laws, as long as the EU commision allows them".

* EU law gets passed by a parliament ... requiring representatives of about 51% of the EU to agree.

Nope. EU parliament only requires over 50% of the MEPs vote to pass a law, there is no requirement that the MEPs represent about 51% of the EU population.

Seeing as smaller countries are over-represented by MEPs (and the UK is vastly under-represented), that means that a law can be ratified by the EU parliament by a group of MEPs representing only 36% of the EU population.

 

[Barn]

Here's a typical brexit voter:

Only in your prejudiced mind.

 

[Joseph.bevan96]

I am currently conducting a poll into Britain's EU membership.

If anyone on here would like to answer please go to: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/CYJWWNR

Any responses would be very welcome if you do so, could you please PM me your name.

I will reveal my personal standing when the poll closes!

Thank you
Joseph.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Only in your prejudiced mind.

Prejudiced against what?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The laws the UK passes have to conform to EU directives set by the EU commission (and approved by the EU parliament). A more accurate description would be "The UK government has all the power to pass laws, as long as the EU commision allows them".

And who decides who goes in the Commission, exactly?

 

[miami]

Not by any measure. Voter representation is distributed a hell of a lot more unequally in the EU than it is in the UK. Inhabitants of smaller countries are given a much, much louder voice than inhabitants of larger countries. How can that be more democratic?

Same way that America styles itself as a democracy.

Nope. EU parliament only requires over 50% of the MEPs vote to pass a law, there is no requirement that the MEPs represent about 51% of the EU population.

In reality laws have to get about 51% of them passed

Seeing as smaller countries are over-represented by MEPs (and the UK is vastly under-represented), that means that a law can be ratified by the EU parliament by a group of MEPs representing only 36% of the EU population.

So in theory the worst case scenario is the normal state of play for Westminster (except in Westminster the whips mean the government get to pass pretty much anything)

Of course in your situation the council (which does have a population requirement) would be unlikely to pass something that only benefits the smallest states at the expense of the largest ones. The same can't be said the other way round.

However by all means argue against the small-country-over-representation. America has a similar issue, with small states over-represented in the senate and congress. I suspect it's in as a protection to ensure that large countries can't bully small countries.

However lets not forget that very democratic upper house in the UK which defines democracy.

The laws the UK passes have to conform to EU directives set by the EU commission (and approved by the EU parliament). A more accurate description would be "The UK government has all the power to pass laws, as long as the EU commision allows them".

And Chad can pass any laws, apart from ones the UN doesn't like. The UK, like Japan, has many obligations on an international stage, including many laws around trading standards. It can ignore them, but then trade treaties would collapse. The UK can pass a law that ignores EU directives, but we would hav eto live with the consequences (which could include being booted out of the EU).

Nope. EU parliament only requires over 50% of the MEPs vote to pass a law, there is no requirement that the MEPs represent about 51% of the EU population.

Seeing as smaller countries are over-represented by MEPs (and the UK is vastly under-represented), that means that a law can be ratified by the EU parliament by a group of MEPs representing only 36% of the EU population.

The reality is splits occur along ideological areas (left wing vs right wing), not along country boundries. Something tells me that the lib dem and green UK meps are not going to be identifying with UKIP, they are going to be representing their constituents on a european stage, and the best way to do that is working with the green and liberal meps from other countries that share the same priorities.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Only in your prejudiced mind.

Based on social media I would say there's a hell of a lot of these people. The topic of "immigration" is the main concern
http://www.breitbart.com/london/201...-important-than-economy-for-undecided-voters/

Voters yet to make up their minds on the European Union (EU) referendum question are twice as likely to cite immigration as their main concern than the economy, a poll has found. The results could explain why the Leave campaign has been gaining momentum in recent days.

And I have to say I agree that there's something worth discussing in Pritti Patel's comments:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...orge-osborne-too-rich-to-care-about-migratio/

David Cameron and other leading pro-Europeans do not care about the effects of mass migration on working families because they are so rich, according to a cabinet minister.

Priti Patel claims the “luxury” lifestyles of campaigners who want to stay in the EU mean they are “insulated” from the impact of rising immigration on the daily lives of millions of Britons.

She says it is “shameful” that the Remain campaign leaders fail to consider the struggles of families who, unlike them, cannot afford private health care or fee-paying schools.

The number of brexit voters who are will actually engage in a sensible debate is quite a low proportion sadly. With the exception of postergate this thread it probably the most civil debate I'm seen on the EU anywhere.

1) There's a problem in some areas with stress on public services
2) This isn't seen as much in middle-class areas, especially outside certain towns and cities (London, Luton, Blackburn etc)
3) This issue is from a large increase in population in this area, from natural growth, internal migration, EU migration, and overseas migration
4) The problem stems from a chronic lack of investment in our infrastructure
5) The solution seems to me to hand more control to the EU, as it's evident that the UK government, Red, Blue, or Yellow-Blue, can't deal with it.

However these issues have not been addressed, with the express-type view of "it's immigrants init? they're all isis, or FRENCH!!", or the guardian-type view of "Oh it's great I get to have falafel every day and my private health care hasn't got a problem, now wheres the security guard at my gated village gone?"

 

[Gutfright]

And who decides who goes in the Commission, exactly?

Each Commissioner is nominated by their member state. Each member state gets one commissioner regardless of population size.

Which means that the UK, with over 12.6% of the EU population, is represented by less than 3.6% of the EU commission and only 9.7% of the MEPs in the European parliament.

Perhaps you think that's fair? Perhaps you believe British people should be denied an equal voice because they're so much stupider than their sophisticated European counterparts?

 

[TheKnightWho]

Each Commissioner is nominated by their member state. Each member state gets one commissioner regardless of population size.

Which means that the UK, with over 12.6% of the EU population, is represented by less than 3.6% of the EU commission and only 9.7% of the MEPs in the European parliament.

Perhaps you think that's fair? Perhaps you believe British people should be denied an equal voice because they're so much stupider than their sophisticated European counterparts?

Yet the Commission is not adversarial, as you seem to be assuming. What advantage would we get by having 4 people in the Commission instead of 1? They don't vote on anything.

Perhaps, instead of assuming I think the British people are stupid, you could think for a second about what you are proposing.

 

[Gutfright]

Yet the Commission is not adversarial, as you seem to be assuming. What advantage would we get by having 4 people in the Commission instead of 1? They don't vote on anything.

Erm, dude, the EU Commission is the only body that can make laws. The EU parliament can't, nor can the European Council.

I happen to believe that our laws should be made by people we elect, rather than people who are appointed to their position.

Perhaps, instead of assuming I think the British people are stupid, you could think for a second about what you are proposing.

What proposals have I made?

 

[northwichcat]

Which means that the UK, with over 12.6% of the EU population, is represented by less than 3.6% of the EU commission and only 9.7% of the MEPs in the European parliament.

Perhaps you think that's fair?

But then EU seats are elected using proportional representation for each UK political region, unlike Westminster seats which are elected using a flawed FPTP system for which the intention seems to be to try and ensure Labour or the Conservatives always have a majority government even if only 1/3rd of the population votes for them. If certain Conservative back benchers and UKIP really want us to vote leave they should be proposing how to make the Westminster government fairer - the Conservatives actually want to make it even less fair by redrawing boundaries in their favour, while they have a very small majority.

 

[NSEFAN]

Erm, dude, the EU Commission is the only body that can make laws. The EU parliament can't, nor can the European Council.

I happen to believe that our laws should be made by people we elect, rather than people who are appointed to their position.

But those laws cannot be enacted without being voted upon by the elected representatives. It's basically the same as the UK government does. The MPs themselves do not make law, they only vote upon it. I don't see why this should be an issue in any case, as actually writing legislation is extremely difficult and not something the man on the street should be doing.

 

[rf_ioliver]

Not by any measure. Voter representation is distributed a hell of a lot more unequally in the EU than it is in the UK. Inhabitants of smaller countries are given a much, much louder voice than inhabitants of larger countries. How can that be more democratic?

If I get my calculations right, it is possible in the UK for 10% of the electorate to vote in around 75% of the MPs. The House of Lords are unelected. "How can that be more democratic?"

The laws the UK passes have to conform to EU directives set by the EU commission (and approved by the EU parliament). A more accurate description would be "The UK government has all the power to pass laws, as long as the EU commision allows them".

Erm, no...the UK has full power to pass whatever laws it likes. Those areas which have been devolved to the EU could be claimed back, but of course there are issues there.

A 'directive' from the EU is just that, it does not specify any law but gives a baseline that a local jurisdiction should apply. THis means that the UK, as any other EU country, is free to interpret a directive within some legal bounds (IANAL, so don't ask me how this is set; I do deal with telecommunications and privacy laws, so I have a good idea of how this works kind of).

An EU Law is a different thing altogether.

There is quite a good publication on the EU website explaining this. I
ll try and find the link, unless someone has already posted it her in this extensive discussion.

Nope. EU parliament only requires over 50% of the MEPs vote to pass a law, there is no requirement that the MEPs represent about 51% of the EU population.

Seeing as smaller countries are over-represented by MEPs (and the UK is vastly under-represented), that means that a law can be ratified by the EU parliament by a group of MEPs representing only 36% of the EU population.

But also take into account the relative economic powers of each country. Further the MEPs band together into parties roughtly corresponding to equivalent national parties.


One serious issue here is that I've never met anyone in the UK who knows how their political system, from parish council right up to the EU actually works.

On the otherhand, this might be an advantage for many politicians...

t.

Ian

 

[TheKnightWho]

Erm, dude, the EU Commission is the only body that can make laws. The EU parliament can't, nor can the European Council.

I happen to believe that our laws should be made by people we elect, rather than people who are appointed to their position.



What proposals have I made?

They initiate legislation. They do not "make laws" - which have to go through the parliament first. Having more people in the Commission from the UK would not actually make any difference, because it is not adversarial and it does not hold votes on what legislation is initiated.

 

[Gutfright]

But then EU seats are elected using proportional representation for each UK political region, unlike Westminster seats which are elected using a flawed FPTP system for which the intention seems to be to try and ensure Labour or the Conservatives always have a majority government even if only 1/3rd of the population votes for them. If certain Conservative back benchers and UKIP really want us to vote leave they should be proposing how to make the Westminster government fairer - the Conservatives actually want to make it even less fair by redrawing boundaries in their favour, while they have a very small majority.

I agree wholeheartedly that our FPTP system is hella flawed, and I strongly oppose Tory attempts to gerrymander the boundaries to give their party an even bigger advantage.

But this is an EU thread.

The EU has over 505 million citizens. EU laws are proposed and drafted by a commission of just 28 people. These 28 people are not even directly elected, but are appointed by each member state.

To pass any laws these 28 unelected people do need the support of at least 36% of the EU parliament. However, British MEPs are under-represented in the European Parliament. The smallest EU countries recieve 10-11 times as many MEPs per head as the UK does.

They initiate legislation. They do not "make laws" - which have to go through the parliament first.

As you know, it is the Commission which is solely responsible for making the laws, all parliament can do is reject the proposed laws they don't like.

Having more people in the Commission from the UK would not actually make any difference, because it is not adversarial and it does not hold votes on what legislation is initiated.

Therefore it's completely fair to have 28 people who are not directly elected being the only people who can create legislation that affects 505 million people? Logic!

 

[NSEFAN]

As you know, it is the Commission which is solely responsible for making the laws, all parliament can do is reject the proposed laws they don't like.

Do you also disapprove of this process of law creation as done by the UK government?

Therefore it's completely fair to have 28 people who are not directly elected being the only people who can create legislation that affects 505 million people? Logic!

I don't see what numbers have to do with anything, I could make the same argument about one group of lawyers making legislation that applies the 60-odd million UK citizens, but then I wouldn't expect the majority of that 60 million to know how to properly create legislation. If anything I can see a problem of "too many cooks" when it comes to creating legislation.

 

[Gutfright]

If I get my calculations right, it is possible in the UK for 10% of the electorate to vote in around 75% of the MPs.

You calculations are wrong.

For 10% of the electorate (10% of 46,354,197) to gain around 75% of MPs (75% of 650 MPs), they would have an average constituency size of only 9,508 people.

The smallest UK constituency has an electorate of 21,769.

Of course, if voter turnout is low enough it's possible for 0.00001% of the population to elect 100% of the MPs (or 100% of the MEPs, for that matter)

 

[Barn]

Do you also disapprove of this process of law creation as done by the UK government?

It's not the same in the UK.

In the Westminster system, the government is drawn from the legislature. So the make up of Parliament directly influences the flavour and strength of the government.

With the informal exception of its most recent President, the make up of the Commission has nothing to do with the make up of the European Parliament. We can't vote in a socialist Europe, a green Europe, a deregulatory Europe, etc.

When it comes to making legislation, choosing the rubber-stampers is not the same as choosing the policy-makers.

PS: Anybody who thinks the European Parliament is a site for considered deliberation on legislation should watch it in action. The votes come in thick and fast, with dozens and dozens on minute aspects of legislation. It is almost impossible for any MEP to really understand what he or she is voting for in any given vote.

 

[EM2]

I happen to believe that our laws should be made by people we elect, rather than people who are appointed to their position.

Like the House Of Lords?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Therefore it's completely fair to have 28 people who are not directly elected being the only people who can create legislation that affects 505 million people? Logic!

But it's OK to have one person who is directly elected to create legislation that affects 65 million people (aka a Private Member's Bill)?

 

[TheKnightWho]

The EU has over 505 million citizens. EU laws are proposed and drafted by a commission of just 28 people. These 28 people are not even directly elected, but are appointed by each member state.

To pass any laws these 28 unelected people do need the support of at least 36% of the EU parliament. However, British MEPs are under-represented in the European Parliament. The smallest EU countries recieve 10-11 times as many MEPs per head as the UK does.



As you know, it is the Commission which is solely responsible for making the laws, all parliament can do is reject the proposed laws they don't like.



Therefore it's completely fair to have 28 people who are not directly elected being the only people who can create legislation that affects 505 million people? Logic!

The Commission initiates legislation that has to be voted on. It is not a bloody dictatorship. Such legislation ultimate derives from our own government, so if you want to say that that is undemocratic then that is a problem with the UK government, not the EU. You've still failed to answer what having 4 people representing the UK in the Commission would actually do.

It still has to be passed in the EU Parliament, which is where numbers actually matter.

 

[Gutfright]

Like the House Of Lords?

But it's OK to have one person who is directly elected to create legislation that affects 65 million people (aka a Private Member's Bill)?

The UK parliamentary system is completely unfair and archaic in places, and reforms are most definitely required.

But this is a thread about the EU, which is why my focus is instead on the glaring democratic deficiencies of the European Union.