Poll: The EU Referendum: How Will You Vote? (June Poll)

Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?

  • Remain a member of the European Union

    Votes: 794 45.1%

  • Leave the European Union

    Votes: 965 54.9%
  • Total voters
    1,759
Status
Not open for further replies.
SlyReaper said:
I wonder if anyone can point me back in the right direction here, because I have actually encountered a counter-argument to leaving I wasn't expecting.

The central over-riding thing for me has always been that the EU is undemocratic, some would even say anti-democratic. I've kind of taken it as read this whole time that this is a bad thing, and overrides all economic concerns.

The counter-argument attacks the foundation of my position, and says that democracy sucks. It has failed. For example, democracy is the reason New Orleans was left to twist after that hurricane (they don't vote republican, so the republican controlled government at the time didn't lift a finger to help them). The EU, being more technocratic than democratic, is free to do what's right, instead of what'll earn them more votes.

This argument makes me uneasy, but I'm finding it hard to articulate why without feeling like a bit of a conspiracy nut. The idea that important decisions are taken by people we don't know and don't have any kind of control over just seems... horrible. But that's not a good explanation.

Of course, the EU's track record of "doing what's right" is hardly beyond reproach. CAP is universally decried by everyone except France as being a terrible idea, for example. The Euro wasn't properly thought through, and has resulted in significant human misery. But even if we accept that the EU is this big benevolent progressive force for Good in the world, the fact that the people in charge never have to explain themselves to the public makes me worry that this won't always be the case. There's nothing to stop the rich and powerful from installing their corporate lackeys into positions of power to benefit themselves at the cost of the public. Is that too paranoid a thing to think?
Click to expand...

I think it's a bit strong to say that democracy has failed. The implementation of democracy within the EU has been recognised to have shortcomings but it is, by design, a democratic organisation. The detail of this has been covered earlier in this thread - but you do, to an extent, have a say in who makes the decisions - I'm not going to get into the detail again because that wasn't the crux of your post.

The EU is able to reach issues that conventional governments simply can't because they are secular by nature. It is certainly an argument that the EU is pivotal to the reasonably peaceful state of the region of Europe and beyond and aids stability by handling relationships internationally with respect to Europe. I believe it does serve to successfully unite a number of countries and cultures in a number of different ways - ways that couldn't necessarily be accomplished using 'conventional' methods seen in government. This is just as much a moral issue as it is an economic, social and immigration issue.

To have an organisation that is able to complete that sort of undertaking is no simple task and therefore requires a level of complexity and with that comes problems and questions. The EU isn't perfect - I think everyone accepts that - and no doubt there will always be a risk of corruption - as with any hierarchical organisation - but that risk is just as valid within the UK, I think. Being cynical, I that's just the nature of people.

There may be a certain amount of paranoia but I'd expect that with anything like this - we can't take everything at face value. On this particular issue I think it does boil down to trust to some extent and how you interpret what (rubbish) information is being presented to us!

In respect to this particular issue of morality, I personally think that we are able to do more as a country as the EU framework enables us to have a wider influence over Europe and the world on humanitarian issues rather than just being in it for our own vested economic and social interests - is better for everyone. It's a different way of thinking to the common arguments you see of 'protect OUR borders', 'ruin OUR economy', 'choose OUR own government'. Yes, the EU influences all those things that are being raised as issues - for better or worse depending on your viewpoint - but this isn't a matter that affects us - this is a matter that has arisen due to the fact that the world is drastically different - it's a global entity and putting barriers up leaves us at a disadvantage in this, and in my opinion, a lot of the other areas. The leave stance is directly contrary to this and so I don't think it's morally defensible which correlates with your feeling of doubt.
 
Last edited:
The EU is corrupt and undemocratic. The Council of Ministers is in charge and are all appointed. The MEPs are elected using a Party List system which discourages attention to the electorate. There is no real direct link between the voter and the European Parliament.

The question is, "Is that better than the alternative?"
 
Quartz said:
The EU is corrupt and undemocratic. The Council of Ministers is in charge and are all appointed. The MEPs are elected using a Party List system which discourages attention to the electorate. There is no real direct link between the voter and the European Parliament.

The question is, "Is that better than the alternative?"
Click to expand...

That is so badly wrong.

The Council of Ministers is made up of the Ministers from each member state who are almost universally democratically elected in their own Country (the exception being the UK which sometimes sends Minsters who are members of the House of Lords and thus not elected.)

The method of election does not render it undemocratic. Israel uses a one constituency list system, Scotland has a top up list, Northern Ireland uses a multi member constituency on the single transferable vote system. The UK uses FPTP which is actually less proportional and maybe less democratic i.e. 4 million UKIP votes gets one seat, 11 million Tory votes gets over 300 seats. Besides UK MEP's are not on a list but in a multi member constituency.

So is that better than a Government that was elected by 27% of the electorate but has a controlling majority? plus 900 Lords who weren't elected at all? and a Head of State who got the job based on the particular vagina she plopped out of?
 
Quartz said:
The EU is corrupt and undemocratic. The Council of Ministers is in charge and are all appointed. The MEPs are elected using a Party List system which discourages attention to the electorate. There is no real direct link between the voter and the European Parliament.

The question is, "Is that better than the alternative?"
Click to expand...

I agree. The EU is not democratic. Is been built on top of a cartel of industries back in 1957, based in Brussels.
We condemn the Chinese one party democracy, however in EU we have NO party democracy. Just central European corporations with vented interests.


And here is a good speech referring to the workings of it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9m_slLzAWzo

(if you do not want to listen to the whole 1 1/2 hours, just jump to the 1h 10m onwards).
 
BaronVonDuncs said:
That is so badly wrong.
Click to expand...

Every time this comes up, this is the same thing i retort with and the reply?

2 wrongs don't make a right.

Perhaps we should sort out our own house before throwing stones at someone else's, no?

Which then devolves into immigration, taking our jerbs, strain on the NHS, 350m a week and so on.

It seems to me that the UK electorate want to make Britain great again, and build a wall and make the EU pay for it.

Thanks to the UK govt of always laying the blame of disastrous national policies on the EU via the media, murdochs empire, it has become hard for the UK govt to convince the electorate that the EU is a good thing without coming off as hypocrites.
 
Chris Wilson said:
You are referring to the VW emissions saga perhaps? ;)
Click to expand...

He mentions it how they manage to escape lightly, even after the whole world fell down on them.

And explains a lot on his speech, the lunacy of the EU and how it has to change. But not by the current politicians though, who all are in the pockets of the cartel. (eg Cameron).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom