So the Archbish of C said the EU is ‘the greatest dream realised for human beings

[Burney]

Nope. My argument is that the moral high ground of democratic accountability adopted by you and your ilk would be a lot easier to swallow if you had ever raised similar concerns about the very similar lack of democracy in the very institutions you claim have been undermined by the EU.

THese institutions you cherish and protect managed, by your own admission, to keep the matter of EU membership off the political agenda for 40 years despite the evident demand for a discussion by a huge percentage of the voting public. Where is your democratic outrage at that system?

I acknowledge the deficit inherent in each but I would never demand we fix one and not the other. That is simply unbalanced.

Well the glib answer would be to turn the question on its head and ask those who have long moaned about the HoL, FPTP and the Monarchy how are they a problem, but this hugely undemocratic entity that has been legislating over you for decades doesn't bother you?

But ultimately this is simply whataboutery, p - and not very good whataboutery at that. Democracy is about what the people want and, for instance, this country was given a vote on changing FPTP and rejected it by a massive margin. Equally, there is precisely no democratic impetus for getting rid of our monarch as head of state, which leaves that question moot. I have always had major questions about the House of Lords, but have always seen their role as advisory rather than strictly legislative - plus I can see the issues of precedence associated with having two elected chambers, so am on the fence.

As for the issue of parties, that is common to every democratic system in the world and there seems precious little alternative to party systems.

And - frankly - all these shortcomings are as nothing to an unelected, unaccountable Commission that is the sole source of legislation (Article 294 of the Lisbon Treaty) and which arrogates hugely important 'exclusive competences' to itself; a Parliament whose power is purely advisory and a Council of Ministers whose power is hugely circumscribed by that of the unelected Commission and whose international nature means that voters in one country that may suffer hugely from a piece of legislation are essentially powerless to opt out of anything (particularly since the advent of QMV).

This is not OK. On any level.

[Peter]

Well the glib answer would be to turn the question on its head and ask those who have long moaned about the HoL, FPTP and the Monarchy - how are they a problem, but this hugely undemocratic entity that has been legislating over you for decades doesn't bother you?

But ultimately this is simply whataboutery, p - and not very good whataboutery at that. Democracy is about what the people want and, for instance, this country was given a vote on changing FPTP and rejected it by a massive margin. Equally, there is precisely no democratic impetus for getting rid of our monarch as head of state, which leaves that question moot. I have always had major questions about the House of Lords, but have always seen their role as advisory rather than strictly legislative - plus I can see the issues of precedence associated with having two elected chambers, so am on the fence.

As for the issue of parties, that is common to every democratic system in the world and there seems precious little alternative to party systems.

And - frankly - all these shortcomings are as nothing to an unelected, unaccountable Commission that is the sole source of legislation (Article 294 of the Lisbon Treaty) and which arrogates hugely important 'exclusive competences' to itself; a Parliament whose power is purely advisory and a Council of Ministers whose power is hugely circumscribed by that of the unelected Commission and whose international nature means that voters in one country that may suffer hugely from a piece of legislation are essentially powerless to opt out of anything (particularly since the advent of QMV).

This is not OK. On any level.

It is not whataboutery when the crux of your argument is that the anti democratic EU is stifling and undermining our own democratic processes. THe response that those processes are not democratic is hugely relevant. As is the irony that those processes combined to prevent a vote on the EU for 40 years. It could hardly be more relevant.

Ultimately democracy is a process, not a series of outcomes. The notion that an undemocratic british system doesnt cause problems undermines the argument that an undeomocratic EU is by definition unacceptable.

I get why you dont like the EU and I agree with some of it. My response to you has always been that I do not accept your posturing on democracy and accountability because...well, I know you!

[Burney]

It is not whataboutery when the crux of your argument is that the anti democratic EU is stifling and undermining our own democratic processes. THe response that those processes are not democratic is hugely relevant. As is the irony that those processes combined to prevent a vote on the EU for 40 years. It could hardly be more relevant.

Ultimately democracy is a process, not a series of outcomes. The notion that an undemocratic british system doesnt cause problems undermines the argument that an undeomocratic EU is by definition unacceptable.

I get why you dont like the EU and I agree with some of it. My response to you has always been that I do not accept your posturing on democracy and accountability because...well, I know you!

It's whataboutery because - as I explained - the deficiencies in the UK's democracy are not on an even comparable scale to those that are intrinsic to the EU. Equally, as a voter, I have the democratic power to change things in the UK should I wish to. For instance, if I wanted to get rid of the Lords and the Monarchy, I could vote for Jeremy Corbyn. How could I ever have voted to reform the EU?

[Ash]

1 is not laughable, not really.

Imagine a state where neither the executive nor the head of state is elected and the only democratic accountability is through a partly elected legislative chamber. A system where your local vote for that chamber is only counted in real terms if it is in the majority..... where your only right ofrepresentation is through your local representative who is swallowed up by a party machine and legislative alliances to the extent that they cease to represent your views at all.....

What honest, humble democrat could possibly tolerate such a system?

And to top it all off we then went and joined the ****ing EU

House of Lords is next! :rubshands:

And as Mr Burnley said, we did have a referendum on FPTP, albeit on a watered-down alternative which I did vote for anyway. As much as I'd like to see the end of the monarchy, most people want to keep it so I must accept that. The executive is appointed by the leader of the party that won the election so you can't really say that's undemocratic.

[Peter]

It's whataboutery because - as I explained - the deficiencies in the UK's democracy are not on an even comparable scale to those that are intrinsic to the EU. Equally, as a voter, I have the democratic power to change things in the UK should I wish to. For instance, if I wanted to get rid of the Lords and the Monarchy, I could vote for Jeremy Corbyn. How could I ever have voted to reform the EU?

Sorry, that does not make it whataboutery........ and the scale is not the issue. THe issue is your total disinterest in the U.K deficit alongside your obsession with that of the EU.

I am not saying you are wrong about the EU. I am calling you a hypocrite. I hope I am making myself clear on that point. I wouldn't want you to get insulted for the wrong reason

[Burney]

Sorry, that does not make it whataboutery........ and the scale is not the issue. THe issue is your total disinterest in the U.K deficit alongside your obsession with that of the EU.

I am not saying you are wrong about the EU. I am calling you a hypocrite. I hope I am making myself clear on that point. I wouldn't want you to get insulted for the wrong reason

I don't much care if you think I'm a hypocrite just as long as you acknowledge that I'm right.

Anyway, at least I don't racially abuse my neighbours like you do. And I could. They're gyppos (albeit ones who live in a proper house).

[Peter]

House of Lords is next! :rubshands:

And as Mr Burnley said, we did have a referendum on FPTP, albeit on a watered-down alternative which I did vote for anyway. As much as I'd like to see the end of the monarchy, most people want to keep it so I must accept that. The executive is appointed by the leader of the party that won the election so you can't really say that's undemocratic.

See, fair or not, I would allow you to grandstand on theEU democratic deficit because you seem to actually care about it.

I simply will not tolerate the same from B. He just doesnt like Darkies

I didnt even vote in the FPTP referendum. To be honest, I had forgotten it even happened.

[Peter]

I don't much care if you think I'm a hypocrite just as long as you acknowledge that I'm right.

Of course you are right. It just isnt good enough I'm afraid

[Burney]

Of course you are right. It just isnt good enough I'm afraid

I can accept your ad hominem attack with equanimity, p. I'm the bigger man.

And 'disinterest' doesn't mean 'lack of interest'.

[Ash]

I get why you dont like the EU and I agree with some of it. My response to you has always been that I do not accept your posturing on democracy and accountability because...well, I know you!

What has been largely missing from the whole saga imo is the coherent left-leaning critique of the EU, as expressed by Peter Shore and Tony Benn in the old days. Those on the right may well be sincere when talking about accountability but there will always be the suspicion that they simply don't like furrins.

Diana Johnstone wrote a piece about Italy for Consortium News, where she said:

World Values Survey results indicate that in Europe and the United States, people who describe themselves as “centrist” on the average have less attachment to democracy (e.g. free and fair elections) that those on the left, and even those on the far right. This is not as surprising as it may seem at first, since “centrists” are by definition attached to the status quo. In European countries, the authoritarian neoliberal “center” is institutionalized in the European Union, which imposes economic policy over the heads of the parliaments of the member countries, dictating measures which conform to the choices of Germany and northern Europe, but are increasingly disastrous for the Southern EU members.

https://consortiumnews.com/2018/06/0...r-cannot-hold/