Labour's attempts to differentiate their position on Brexit and specifically

[Peter]

And perhaps had it been made more clear to Remain voters that they were voting to transfer more and more powers over time from an accountable Parliament to an unnaccountable Commission, that Britain would never have control over its borders and immigration levels, and that the EU would continue to expand into more countries at ever greater expense and with an ever expanding bureaucracy, and that their vote would be worth less and less ... the vote might have been different again.

The democratic deficit argument was quite hard to swallow when an unelected Westminster PM and cabinet was planning to negotiate Brexit without consulting parliament in any meaningful way. A freak election result may make us look rather more accountable but I am still prompted to ask why so many people seem to find Westminster democratically acceptable yet reserve nothing but rage for Brussels.

Not really including you in that, before you ask.

[Burney]

The democratic deficit argument was quite hard to swallow when an unelected Westminster PM and cabinet was planning to negotiate Brexit without consulting parliament in any meaningful way. A freak election result may make us look rather more accountable but I am still prompted to ask why so many people seem to find Westminster democratically acceptable yet reserve nothing but rage for Brussels.

Not really including you in that, before you ask.

The argument that 'There are problems with our democracy, so we have no right to complain about the structurally anti-democratic nature of the EU' always seemed an odd one to me. Jorge used to trot it out rather a lot.

There may be democratic deficits in Westminster, but they are things we can vote to change should we so desire. The democratic deficits in Brussels, however, are far greater and not subject to our democratic scrutiny in any way, shape of form.

Besides, if anything, I would say that this country at the moment is suffering from a surfeit of democracy rather than a deficit.

[Peter]

The argument that 'There are problems with our democracy, so we have no right to complain about the structurally anti-democratic nature of the EU' always seemed an odd one to me. Jorge used to trot it out rather a lot.

There may be democratic deficits in Westminster, but they are things we can vote to change should we so desire. The democratic deficits in Brussels, however, are far greater and not subject to our democratic scrutiny in any way, shape of form.

Besides, if anything, I would say that this country at the moment is suffering from a surfeit of democracy rather than a deficit.

It is a tough sell, I agree. My question was to those who are happy with one and not the other, not some contorted moral question about the right to throw ideological stones.

I wouldn't say those in Brussels were far greater, but then I don't have a problem with either. Democracy is not the be all and end all to me- I think my point is that it isn't for a lot of other people until the undemocratic institution in question speaks with a French accent.

[Burney]

It is a tough sell, I agree. My question was to those who are happy with one and not the other, not some contorted moral question about the right to throw ideological stones.

I wouldn't say those in Brussels were far greater, but then I don't have a problem with either. Democracy is not the be all and end all to me- I think my point is that it isn't for a lot of other people until the undemocratic institution in question speaks with a French accent.

Of course. But it speaking with a French accent is a fundamental problem. We've never really signed up to this idea of destroying the nation state and breaking down national identities. To an Englishman, it is still 'them' (all foreigners) and 'us' (the English with the unfortunate celts allowed to join in if they behave). That is not a criticism. It is an attitude of mind that has served us well for rather a long time, in fact.

Ultimately, it boils down to this, p: You can't trust foreigners. They're not as good as Englishmen. That's just a fact.

[Peter]

Of course. But it speaking with a French accent is a fundamental problem. We've never really signed up to this idea of destroying the nation state and breaking down national identities. To an Englishman, it is still 'them' (all foreigners) and 'us' (the English with the unfortunate celts allowed to join in if they behave). That is not a criticism. It is an attitude of mind that has served us well for rather a long time, in fact.

Ultimately, it boils down to this, p: You can't trust foreigners. They're not as good as Englishmen. That's just a fact.

Which is a far more honest and accurate description of the common view than some old horse**** about democracy. Not that I am suggesting that honesty and accuracy should play any part in our political process.

[Ash]

The democratic deficit argument was quite hard to swallow when an unelected Westminster PM and cabinet was planning to negotiate Brexit without consulting parliament in any meaningful way. A freak election result may make us look rather more accountable but I am still prompted to ask why so many people seem to find Westminster democratically acceptable yet reserve nothing but rage for Brussels.

Not really including you in that, before you ask.

We don't vote for PMs, we vote for MPs. I have no problem with continuity PMs like May and Brown leading their parties without winning a GE. Do Parliament get consulted in any meaningful way when EU bills become UK law?

However flawed UK democracy might be it is at least more democratic than the EU. Magna Carta was a long way from universal suffrage but it was still an improvement on absolute monarchy.

[Peter]

We don't vote for PMs, we vote for MPs. I have no problem with continuity PMs like May and Brown leading their parties without winning a GE. Do Parliament get consulted in any meaningful way when EU bills become UK law?

However flawed UK democracy might be it is at least more democratic than the EU. Magna Carta was a long way from universal suffrage but it was still an improvement on absolute monarchy.

We don't conform to most modern (18th century onwards) interpretations of democracy. No separation of church and state, unelected Head of State, mangled unelected executive that is drawn directly from the legislature, unelected second chamber with significant, historical legal functions, no codified constitution, antiquated voting system....

On the plus side we get to directly elect the people who organise the binmen and street lighting, and we now have a Mayor of Birmingham….

[Burney]

We don't conform to most modern (18th century onwards) interpretations of democracy. No separation of church and state, unelected Head of State, mangled unelected executive that is drawn directly from the legislature, unelected second chamber with significant, historical legal functions, no codified constitution, antiquated voting system....

On the plus side we get to directly elect the people who organise the binmen and street lighting, and we now have a Mayor of Birmingham….

No, because our democratic structures pre-date those concepts of democracy. What's more, they've proved fairly robust by virtue of their adaptability. Ultimately, that's the thing about the UK system: whatever it's theoretical flaws, it actually works remarkably well.

[Peter]

No, because our democratic structures pre-date those concepts of democracy. What's more, they've proved fairly robust by virtue of their adaptability. Ultimately, that's the thing about the UK system: whatever it's theoretical flaws, it actually works remarkably well.

Democracy is not about things working well, it is about the people getting what they deserve.

British democracy is about pragmatism, patronage and tradition. Of course it works well. Certainly for those in it.....

[Ash]

We don't conform to most modern (18th century onwards) interpretations of democracy. No separation of church and state, unelected Head of State, mangled unelected executive that is drawn directly from the legislature, unelected second chamber with significant, historical legal functions, no codified constitution, antiquated voting system....

On the plus side we get to directly elect the people who organise the binmen and street lighting, and we now have a Mayor of Birmingham….

Oh, I'm all for waving the monarchy off into the sunset and abolishing the house of Lords, but Queenie doesn't actually do anything really political. We're hardly a theocracy, at least not untill the Alans take over, and binmen are terribly important, don't you think? The only thing most of us really expect from our Local Authority to do well is take the damn rubbish away.