Brexit

Shadow Dragon said:

Well, the US has a Surpreme Court where (usually) nine people are in for life without any direct election on them, and they have the power to overrule the President, Congress, and the will of the people on legal matters. It's actually probably a damn good thing they aren't directly elected.

I can understand the appeal of having parts of the government, powerful parts, that aren't elected into office, and thus don't get bogged down in campaigning or in changing over the latest knee jerk reaction of the voting public.

Click to expand...

That was, in plain fact, the direct intention of the Founding Dads, for exactly the reasons you state. And, with whatever historical warts and harpoon scars the Institution bears, it was an idea of genius that has served the United States very well.

caw

ReallyRong said:

So you're happy with 28 unelected people running Europe?

Click to expand...

Except that's not really the case, is it?

As I don't live in the EU, I went on the BBC to research. This is what they say:

The Commission plays a vital role in the EU. It is the body which proposes new legislation, draws up the EU's annual budget and manages and supervises EU funding. The Commission consists of 28 members, one from each member state.

...

More importantly, any new legislation proposed by the Commission still has to be agreed by the member states and passed by the European Parliament, which is directly elected by EU voters.

...

The British government states that "the civil service helps the government of the day develop and implement its policies". In this sense, the work of British civil servants is comparable to that of the staff of the European Commission. Unlike appointed ministers heading government departments in the UK, the 28 European commissioners are meant to carry out their responsibilities independently of their national governments, acting only in the general interest of the union. In that sense, they are similar to British civil servants - politically impartial and independent of the government.

Click to expand...

So no, they aren't "running Europe". Such a claim seems to honestly be just like most arguments for Brexit which fall apart under even the most minor scrutiny. The notion of unelected EU commissioners in Brussels pushing their view on the UK makes no sense, because the UK has to agree to the laws. And even if one were to take the view that the EU commission was undemocratic, I fail to see how it's any worse than the House of Lords.

But then again, people who have argued for Brexit are, well... hypocritical. For example, apparently sovereignty of Parliament is of paramount importance, except of course for last week, where judges ruling that Parliament must vote on Brexit is undemocratic.

Remainders constantly get accused of being smug and arrogant, but it's sort of hard not to be in the face of such rampant idiocy.


Source: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36429482

blacbird said:

That was, in plain fact, the direct intention of the Founding Dads, for exactly the reasons you state. And, with whatever historical warts and harpoon scars the Institution bears, it was an idea of genius that has served the United States very well.

caw

Click to expand...

Just last night I went to a talk with Jerry and Dean from Making a Murderer, and one of the audience members asked if they would prefer to be tried by a judge or by a jury. Both of them said despite its flaws, the jury system is better. You don't want to be judged by someone who has a political mandate to live up to.

My point was that in the EU we have an elected parliament of 750 odd MEPs and an unelected Commission of 28 - er - Commissars. The only function of the parliament is to either accept or reject policies which originate from the Commission. The elected parliament has no right to create legislation. I know I bang on about Paxman, but if you have a spare hour I think this program which was aired on the BBC in the lead up to the referendum, is worth a viewing. BTW - Paxman is fairly even handed, being equally scathing to everyone.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1pGOzhhOAF8

Alessandra Kelley said:

"Equally scathing to everyone" is not the same thing as "even handed" or even "informed".

Also, wasn't Paxman that fellow who somehow came to the conclusion that US black people were largely undecided about Donald Trump?

Click to expand...

Yes, he was, and that alone is enough to discredit him as far as I'm concerned. I haven't seen any polls that back up his assertions, not even a little.

The "equally scathing" philosophy seems to be popular in recent years. I can't claim to know why, but it does seem that people who follow this philosophy place big importance on being right, and being cynically against everything means you're always right about something.

ReallyRong said:

So you're happy with 28 unelected people running Europe?

Click to expand...

If you seriously think that the politicians in Westminster make the decisions as opposed to the senior civil servants (unelected, by the way), then you clearly haven't looked closely into how our country is run. I've worked in the system. I can tell you now, the politicians send down a remit to the civil service saying 'I need to know about X' and then experts (whom apparently we all hate anyway these days) provide briefing notes and answers to Parliamentary questions. I know this because my job was to drop everything on a Monday when a query from an MP came in pertaining to a question which was going to be asked on Wednesday. Likewise, MPs do not particularly decide on or draft policy. I've drafted plenty of policy, and never once been elected to any kind of position. For quite a long time part of the planning policy that governed the entirety of the East Midlands was written by me, and then approved by elected officials. Not one of whom changed any of what I'd written. MPs read policy, and sometimes they veto perfectly sensible policies. But to a large extent this stuff is researched, written, refined by the civil service. If you want real power in this country, get on the civil service fast track scheme, don't waste your time getting elected. Politicians are the public faces (and occasional scapegoats) of the people behind the scenes who are doing the heavy lifting.

Tell me again how what we really need is to get rid of unelected officials in the EU because the way we do it here is so much more democratic?

usuallycountingbats said:

Tell me again how what we really need is to get rid of unelected officials in the EU because the way we do it here is so much more democratic?

Click to expand...

All just goes to show how terms like unelected EU bearucrats is just a term used to justify an opinion. No thought to what it actually means. Having a referendum on this issue was the worst idea ever.

RightHoJeeves said:

Having a referendum on this issue was the worst idea ever.

Click to expand...

God, I've been saying this all along. It's a sure fire way to get shouted at because "oh so you don't trust the people to decide on their own, you fascist?" but when the issue is a massively complex multi-state alliance and our complex membership in it? No, I don't. Especially when so many people since the very beginning very clearly didn't know what the hell they were talking about, as proven by the "unelected bureaucrats overrule our Parliament" talking point. I mean I like to consider myself at least a bit more liable to actually look stuff up and research things before voting (hell I even tried to look up my local council candidates to see what their individual ideals were, and nobody even votes in council elections) and I freely admit that I did not remotely understand the entirety of the EU. Most people you'd just bump into in the street couldn't possibly claim to totally understand. I voted Remain but I can't say I did it from a place of complete intellectual confidence in doing so, a large part of my motivation was just because nothing I heard the other way made sense and Remain seemed the most obviously safe and non-destructive option and I didn't feel comfortable voting for something where the outcome was always going to be, and still is, a massive question mark.

But a lot didn't see it that way, but they didn't really know. Because nobody really could. Hence why so many were so easily swayed by vague substance-free arguments like the evil unelected bureaucrats.

Reservoir Angel said:

God, I've been saying this all along. It's a sure fire way to get shouted at because "oh so you don't trust the people to decide on their own, you fascist?" but when the issue is a massively complex multi-state alliance and our complex membership in it? No, I don't. Especially when so many people since the very beginning very clearly didn't know what the hell they were talking about, as proven by the "unelected bureaucrats overrule our Parliament" talking point. I mean I like to consider myself at least a bit more liable to actually look stuff up and research things before voting (hell I even tried to look up my local council candidates to see what their individual ideals were, and nobody even votes in council elections) and I freely admit that I did not remotely understand the entirety of the EU. Most people you'd just bump into in the street couldn't possibly claim to totally understand. I voted Remain but I can't say I did it from a place of complete intellectual confidence in doing so, a large part of my motivation was just because nothing I heard the other way made sense and Remain seemed the most obviously safe and non-destructive option and I didn't feel comfortable voting for something where the outcome was always going to be, and still is, a massive question mark.

But a lot didn't see it that way, but they didn't really know. Because nobody really could. Hence why so many were so easily swayed by vague substance-free arguments like the evil unelected bureaucrats.

Click to expand...

Thing that gets me is if you were to say "Referendum wasn't a good idea because people don't know what they're talking about" you're deemed arrogant and elitist, looking down on the "little people". Honestly, I don't think there is anything wrong with admitting you don't know enough to meaningfully contribute. The Australian Government doesn't come to me and say "Hey RightHoJeeves, what should we do about East Timor/What are your thoughts on our trade deals with China/Should we change interest rates" because I do not know.

There are issues I have understandings about, and those are voted on at elections. No one consults me on the finer points of foreign policy for good reason.

PS - this is the reason its a miracle the plebiscite to decide on same sex marriage was just shot down in Australia. It should be a free vote in Parliament, because the last thing anyone needs is the Australian Christian Lobby spreading lies about how legalizing same sex marriage will lead to bestiality.

Reservoir Angel said:

God, I've been saying this all along. It's a sure fire way to get shouted at because "oh so you don't trust the people to decide on their own, you fascist?" but when the issue is a massively complex multi-state alliance and our complex membership in it? No, I don't. Especially when so many people since the very beginning very clearly didn't know what the hell they were talking about, as proven by the "unelected bureaucrats overrule our Parliament" talking point. I mean I like to consider myself at least a bit more liable to actually look stuff up and research things before voting (hell I even tried to look up my local council candidates to see what their individual ideals were, and nobody even votes in council elections) and I freely admit that I did not remotely understand the entirety of the EU. Most people you'd just bump into in the street couldn't possibly claim to totally understand. I voted Remain but I can't say I did it from a place of complete intellectual confidence in doing so, a large part of my motivation was just because nothing I heard the other way made sense and Remain seemed the most obviously safe and non-destructive option and I didn't feel comfortable voting for something where the outcome was always going to be, and still is, a massive question mark.

But a lot didn't see it that way, but they didn't really know. Because nobody really could. Hence why so many were so easily swayed by vague substance-free arguments like the evil unelected bureaucrats.

Click to expand...

Completely agree - we should never have been asked to vote on this. It's like hiring a plumber to fix your boiler but forcing them to do their job by asking everyone on your street what they think the issue is and how it should be fixed.

ReallyRong said:

My point was that in the EU we have an elected parliament of 750 odd MEPs and an unelected Commission of 28 - er - Commissars. The only function of the parliament is to either accept or reject policies which originate from the Commission. The elected parliament has no right to create legislation. I know I bang on about Paxman, but if you have a spare hour I think this program which was aired on the BBC in the lead up to the referendum, is worth a viewing. BTW - Paxman is fairly even handed, being equally scathing to everyone.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1pGOzhhOAF8

Click to expand...

That's a pretty one sided and poorly informed documentary by Paxman. He seems to want to be as negative as he can be. He starts by raking up the bendy banana non-story. This bears repeating. The EU have never banned non-bendy bananas. It's a myth. What they did do was to have a grading system for different quality levels of bananas to help countries to trade in them. Nothing more, nothing less.

They also have perfectly reasonable directives around food safety, equalities, health, vehicle safety ... the list goes on. All good sensible stuff. If the EU didn't do regulate these things, we'd almost certainly be regulating them at a national level.

When he started whining about art he didn't like, I stopped watching.

The "unelected and unaccountable EU" tag is such a distortion that it's almost become tedious having to refute it. The EU has MPs, just like the UK. It has civil servants, just like the UK. It has a court, just like the UK. It has a Parliament, just like the UK. It has Ministers, just like the UK.

Where the EU is different from the UK is that it has 28 Commissioners. This is because the EU is an international treaty organisation which is governed by its member states. Each of those 28 member states chooses 1 of the 28 Commissioners. So, yes, those commissioners are unelected, but they are chosen by the democratically elected member states. And they are also accountable to those member states.

Paxman was trying to do a hatchet job on the EU, but it was abundantly clear that he either didn't know what he was talking about or was trying to distort the truth to present as negative a picture of the EU as he could.

The documentary might have improved after the 10 minute mark, but I will never know. Up to that point he had spouted so much gibberish that I couldn't be bothered to watch any more.

Please, please, please if we want have a debate about Brexit, let's do it on the basis of the facts and not meaningless soundbites like "unelected and unaccountable".

Once! said:

They also have perfectly reasonable directives around food safety, equalities, health, vehicle safety ... the list goes on. All good sensible stuff. If the EU didn't do regulate these things, we'd almost certainly be regulating them at a national level.

Click to expand...

The problem here is many of the electorate didn't like that subtext of 'stick to what we know is best for you'. In reality many find the regulation and laws to be meddling whether it's something small like a wattage limit on vacuums or big like the common fisheries policy. Whatever the arguments for and against on those particular two, some just don't like the pinch.

The campaign had divisive characters and was full of finger-pointing though I think Daniel Hannan's case for leave was difficult not be impressed by - reasoned and passionate.

Alessandra Kelley said:

It's not a very impressive argument, especially when the laws protested against are, say, preventing everyone's electrical grid from blowing from overuse or everyone's oceans from becoming barren wastelands -- or enforcing seat belts or lack of poison in food or lack of killer pollutants in the air and water.

Click to expand...

I guess that's the crux. Some will argue against the intended moral good of the common fisheries policy (for example) while insisting it has affected their livelihood/family tradition. If they feel that to be true it's as good a reason as any to reject the status quo.

Alessandra Kelley said:

Yeah.

When Nigel Farage was sneeringly deriding "experts" I kept thinking, "But aren't they the people whose job and avocation is to understand the ins and outs of this extraordinarily complex situation?"

Click to expand...

This is what truly worried me about the EU referendum. The trend of anti-intellectualism. The notion that to be an expert is to mean you're out of touch and not to be trusted. I didn't trust common everyday people (a group in which I fully include myself because despite how I may talk sometimes I am basically just an ill-informed bystander) with the decision on our membership of the EU for the same reason that I go to the doctor when I'm ill and don't just ask the neighbours what they think might ail me.

Experts are not to be sneered at. They are the people who know more about complex issues like this than most other people could ever hope to. Why would anyone not take their advice?

Though I do admit my absolute favourite moment of the EU referendum campaign was when Michael Gove said that people are tired of listening to the elites. Michael Gove. Or, to give him his actual title, Lord Chancellor Michael Gove. The Lord Chancellor doesn't like "elites."

usuallycountingbats said:

If you seriously think that the politicians in Westminster make the decisions as opposed to the senior civil servants (unelected, by the way), then you clearly haven't looked closely into how our country is run. I've worked in the system. I can tell you now, the politicians send down a remit to the civil service saying 'I need to know about X' and then experts (whom apparently we all hate anyway these days) provide briefing notes and answers to Parliamentary questions. I know this because my job was to drop everything on a Monday when a query from an MP came in pertaining to a question which was going to be asked on Wednesday. Likewise, MPs do not particularly decide on or draft policy. I've drafted plenty of policy, and never once been elected to any kind of position. For quite a long time part of the planning policy that governed the entirety of the East Midlands was written by me, and then approved by elected officials. Not one of whom changed any of what I'd written. MPs read policy, and sometimes they veto perfectly sensible policies. But to a large extent this stuff is researched, written, refined by the civil service. If you want real power in this country, get on the civil service fast track scheme, don't waste your time getting elected. Politicians are the public faces (and occasional scapegoats) of the people behind the scenes who are doing the heavy lifting.

Tell me again how what we really need is to get rid of unelected officials in the EU because the way we do it here is so much more democratic?

Click to expand...

My point was that the civil service in the UK, or anywhere else in the world, may carry out legislation but they don't create it. However, they do in the EU.

ReallyRong said:

My point was that the civil service in the UK, or anywhere else in the world, may carry out legislation but they don't create it. However, they do in the EU.

Click to expand...

The problem people have this with argument is the leap to "Europe is governed by unelected bureaucrats". No matter how you spin it, that is just not true. In all honesty, them being unelected removes them from politicization, which is a good thing.

What's better:
a) scenario where policy is drafted by an apolitical body dedicated to the best interested of the EU, or
b) scenario where policy is drafted by elected officials with political agendas to their own countries and not to the EU as a whole

Given the policy is sent through the European Parliament anyway, which is elected (as it should be), I fail to see how its undemocratic or any worse than any other system.