You could argue that in a democratic capitalist market economy, government should concern itself predominantly with non-economic concerns of the people over economic welfare of its billionaire class. This ideal isn't always matched by reality, of course.
In fact they mattered so much the the leave campaign flagrantly perjured themselves to convince the voters of a false reality in order to get the vote they wanted. Democracy! It ain't what it used to be.
All the sovereign baloney bothers me too - I'm not better off as a lowly nobody that in having the Queen and PM May holding the sovereign power over me than I was having the relatively socialist EU powers over me, whether they were elected or not. I really don't get the argument beyond it being used as a veil for racism or a desire to return to The Empire.
Which seems exactly like the measure of democracy we have in the UK, no?
What gives you that impression?
Also assuming whitehall will produce less redtape than brussels is probably not going to be true :(
Explain.
The UK has an unlected upper House of Lords.
It has a monarch that technically still has a lot of power, even if it isn't excercised.
London is the primary focus of the country's expenditure and may as well be a city state.
The City of London, an entity unto itself is rife with fraud and corruption on a global scale, and essentially owns our politicians, much like Goldman Sachs basically owns the US government.
> "The UK has an unlected upper House of Lords."
The balance of power has shifted in those 'hundreds of years'. The House of Lords no longer has the same level of power it did 200 years ago. The Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949 shifted the bulk of the power for law making to the House of Commons. If you're not familiar with these bills, I recommend taking a look...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_Act_1911
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_Act_1949
> "It has a monarch that technically still has a lot of power, even if it isn't excercised."
The moment the Monarch tries to exercise that power is the moment the Monarch seals their fate, as dissolution of the monarchy would almost inevitably follow soon after. I'd hardly call that 'power'.
> "London is the primary focus of the country's expenditure and may as well be a city state."
I agree that spending in London is disproportionately high compared to the rest of the country.
However, it's worth remembering how big a part of the UK that London is. The population of Greater London is roughly 9.8 million. The population of the UK as a whole is roughly 64.1 million. Therefore, approximately 15% of everyone in the UK lives in London/Greater London. To put that in perspective, that's more people than live in the next 6 largest urban areas combined (Greater Manchester, West Midlands, West Yorkshire, Greater Glasgow, Liverpool, South Hampshire).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_urban_areas_in_the_Uni...
There are signs that UK public spending outside London will be improving. At the moment public spending in the UK is guided by the Barnett formula, which even the author himself admits was a 'terrible mistake'...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnett_formula
> "The City of London, an entity unto itself is rife with fraud and corruption on a global scale, and essentially owns our politicians, much like Goldman Sachs basically owns the US government."
The City of London is rife with fraud and corruption, but that's no argument for the EU, which is equally in bed with big business. The lobbying industry for the EU is massive, second only to the US.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/08/lobbyists-euro...
How do you see the grassroots transitioning the UK voting system for general elections, what power do we have if the MPs don't want it?
When did you vote for Juncker or anyone else on the commission? The commission where all the power of the EU is concentrated?
It's got better than when it was at its worst, but the EU is still incredibly undemocratic and unaccountable for a Western institution.
And let's not even start on how Germany suddenly seem to be in control of the Euro and seem to be essentially dictating monetary policy in Greece, Italy and Spain.
Germany was the main opponent of lowering the interest rate to 0 and launching QE, they obviously failed, no Germany is not suddenly in control of the Euro.
I am myself not a big proponent of the EU, but let's keep criticism where it's due and don't raise conspiracies about sudden german control of the Euro.
Yes, lets.
For the most part, the role of the House of Lords is to refine the work that is done by the House of Commons. In other words, they act as an advisory body. It's the House of Commons that makes the decisions on what laws to propose, that sets the political direction for the country. The House of Lords proposes no laws themselves, and aside from exceptional circumstances they cannot block legislation that is proposed by the House of Commons.
Compare that to the EU. The European Parliament, where the bulk of the elected representatives sit, cannot propose new laws, they can only refine what gets proposed by the European Commission. In other words, it's the inverse of the UK system.
Juncker was the PPE candidate before the last round of EU elections. A majority of EU citizens voted PPE-member parties, so Juncker was elected Commission President. That's democracy in my book. All major European parties had a CP candidate going in the election, although only two had a realistic shot (Juncker for PPE and Martin Schulz for PSE); if you voted for Labour in UK, you voted for Schulz -- who is now President of the European Parliament btw, following a common European convention where opposition leaders are given oversight roles. That's real democracy in action IMHO.
> commission where all the power of the EU is concentrated
Was concentrated, pre-2009. The Commission now sets the legislative agenda, but Parliament has final say including veto.
> the EU is still incredibly undemocratic and unaccountable
Considering the institutions typically taking flak (Commission and Council) are direct emanation of national governments, I'd say the responsibility for that sits directly with national governments and their voters. Besides, if you don't like the fact that you "didn't vote for Juncker", you should be happy that Commission and Council will always include a representation from your country, no matter what anyone votes for, and it's usually on the topic that is of most interest to your country.
> Germany suddenly seem to be in control of the Euro
That's the real problem (which doesn't really affect the UK, but certainly the EU as a whole suffers from it). Everything else is a detail.
(Side note: I always consider the "EU is undemocratic because of the appointed council" argument a bit hilarious coming from the British with the appointed House of Lords.)
That's where you've misunderstood. The commissioners are not the representatives of those that nominate them. They are expressly forbidden from taking instructions from their national government. Don't believe me? Watch this, it's from the European Commission's YouTube channel...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWpgO1EPO_Y
As for the wider point about the EU being democratic, perhaps you should take some time to listen to someone who has been directly involved with the EU. Here's an excerpt from a talk involving Yanis Varoufakis and Noam Chomsky...
https://youtu.be/2WG-uEND74E?t=1h16m37s
"Q: Hello. My question is for Mr. Chomsky. In the past you’ve been very critical of the way in which the West has engaged in political and economic imperialism around the world behind closed doors, kind of smoke and mirrors. How do you believe that transparency and democratizing the Eurozone—
NOAM CHOMSKY: And democratizing the Eurozone.
Q: How it will kind of affect or possibly deter this behavior?
NOAM CHOMSKY: Well, actually one of the things that Yanis discusses in his book is that the Eurozone—in the Eurozone, democracy has declined arguably even faster than it has in the United States. During this past generation of neoliberal policies there has been a global assault on democracy, that’s kind of inherent in the principles. And in the Eurozone it’s reached a remarkable level. I mean, even the Wall Street Journal, hardly a critical rag, pointed out that no matter who gets elected in a European country, whether it’s communist, fascist, anybody else, the policies remain the same. And the reason is they’re all set in Brussels, by the bureaucracy, and the citizens of the national states have no role in this, and when they try to have a role, as in the Greek referendum, they get smashed down. That’s a rare step. Mostly they are sitting by passively as victims of policies over which they have nothing to say, and what Yanis said about the Eurogroup is quite striking. This is a completely unelected work group. Not in any remote way related to citizens’ decisions, but it’s basically making the decisions, the choices and decisions. That’s even beyond what happens here. Here it’s bad enough, but that’s more extreme.
YANIS VAROUFAKIS: Let me add to this just to clarify something. Actually I will go further than Noam about Europe. The European Union doesn’t suffer or the Eurogroup from a democratic deficit. It’s like saying that we are on the moon and there is an oxygen deficit. There is no oxygen deficit on the moon. There is no oxygen, full stop. And this is official in Europe.
At my first Eurogroup, as the rookie around, I was given the floor to set out our policies and to introduce myself, which is nice, and I gave the most moderate speech that I thought it was humanly possible to make. I said, “I know that you are annoyed I’m here. Your favorite guy didn’t get elected, I got elected, I’m here, but I’m here in order to work with you, to find common ground, there is a failed program that you want to keep insisting on implementing in Greece, we have our mandate, let’s sit down and find common ground.” I thought that was a pretty moderate thing to say. They didn’t.
And then after me, after I had expounded the principle of continuity and the principle of democracy, and the idea of having some compromise between the two, Doctor Wolfgang Schäuble puts his name tag forward and demands the floor and he comes up with a magnificent statement, verbatim I’m going to give you what he said, “Elections cannot be allowed to change the economic policies of any country.” At which point I intervened and said, “this is the greatest gift to the Communist Party of China, because they believe that too.”'
The same applies to the representative I elect to the German Bundestag. He's bound only to his conscience. Still, I vote for the representative that I think will represent my needs best. Neither is the chancellor - who is elected by the Bundestag as a matter of fact - bound to take instructions from the Bundestag. I don't consider that undemocratic.
I also consider the greek referendum not a good example. The Greek basically had a referendum on how to spend other peoples money. I don't agree with the outcome, but I don't agree with the greek government position either. If you're trying to reschedule loans your banks will want to have a word in it. The alternative - a Greek state bankrupt and an exit from the EU/Euro zone was on the table, but the elected Greek government decided not to - which was their democratic right to do. It's not like the EU armies invaded Greece and forced the governments arm.
And I don't consider Yannis Varoufakis a good politician either. He's certainly a good economist and his position may quite well be correct in economists terms, but politics is much much more then economics. Politics need to balance the perfect against what's achievable and judging from what I could see how things went down, trying to achieve a perfect outcome was impossible from the start. Yet, still, he tried to sell the unsalable - his interpretation of his introduction speed as "moderate" is quite telling. (Insults from both sides and comparison of Schäuble with Hitler didn't do any good either). In that regard, Merkel is a much more capable politician: She accepts the inevitable and instead focuses on the possible. I don't like the politics she's pursuing but she's doing remarkably well in that regard.
The people that are democratically elected are bound to the electorate that got them there. How so? If they do a poor job, they can be voted out. It is in their self interest to listen to their voters. The worst thing that can happen in this situation is if voters are apathetic, as then the elected representatives can get away with whatever they want. In a functioning representative democracy, it is up to the general public to hold their elected representatives to account.
> "I also consider the greek referendum not a good example. The Greek basically had a referendum on how to spend other peoples money. I don't agree with the outcome, but I don't agree with the greek government position either. If you're trying to reschedule loans your banks will want to have a word in it. The alternative - a Greek state bankrupt and an exit from the EU/Euro zone was on the table, but the elected Greek government decided not to - which was their democratic right to do. It's not like the EU armies invaded Greece and forced the governments arm."
You should watch the video that I linked to before, the story did not play out how you paint it. To illustrate, how much money went to the Greek people during the last bailout?
> "And I don't consider Yannis Varoufakis a good politician either. He's certainly a good economist and his position may quite well be correct in economists terms, but politics is much much more then economics. Politics need to balance the perfect against what's achievable and judging from what I could see how things went down, trying to achieve a perfect outcome was impossible from the start. Yet, still, he tried to sell the unsalable - his interpretation of his introduction speed as "moderate" is quite telling. (Insults from both sides and comparison of Schäuble with Hitler didn't do any good either). In that regard, Merkel is a much more capable politician: She accepts the inevitable and instead focuses on the possible. I don't like the politics she's pursuing but she's doing remarkably well in that regard."
Again, you should watch the whole video.
> Wall Street Journal, hardly a critical rag, pointed out that no matter who gets elected in a European country, whether it’s communist, fascist, anybody else, the policies remain the same.
That's utter bullshit. He cites the Wall Street Journal to give that credibility, but that fails already. Some author in a newspaper pointed something out and than its a fact? Very very weak way of supporting an argument.
> And the reason is they’re all set in Brussels, by the bureaucracy
That's nonsense again. If that were the case Germany could send its bureaucracy home. But the German bureaucracy is much much larger than the EU bureaucracy in Brussels
> and the citizens of the national states have no role in this,
Even more nonsense.
> “Elections cannot be allowed to change the economic policies of any country.”
Out of context quote. Much of the economic policies is made in the member states. On an EU level there is some stability of longer term economic policies needed. That's what Schäuble was talking about.
Using the Wall Street Journal example is an attempt to illustrate that even corporate-focused news outlets admit that the EU is not built on a strong democratic foundation. If you're not happy with that example, I could point out other news outlets that have made similar statements, or I could point out direct quotes from those involved in the EU. Which would you prefer?
> "That's nonsense again. If that were the case Germany could send its bureaucracy home. But the German bureaucracy is much much larger than the EU bureaucracy in Brussels"
It's not the size of the bureaucracy that's important, it's the level of influence that non-elected bodies possess in that bureaucracy. If you had watched the video I linked to, you'd have heard about the example of the Eurogroup Working Group dictating the policies of the Eurogroup. The Eurogroup Working Group is comprised of the members of the "Economic and Financial Committee (EFC), the European Commission and the European Central Bank" (quote taken from here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurogroup_Working_Group ).
To be clear, the EFC is comprised of "senior officials from national administrations and EU central banks, the European Central Bank and the Commission" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_and_Financial_Committ...).
None of these people are democratically elected, yet they are setting the financial policy for all members of the Eurozone. Does that not concern you in the slightest?
> "Out of context quote. Much of the economic policies is made in the member states. On an EU level there is some stability of longer term economic policies needed. That's what Schäuble was talking about."
At what point does stability and consensus not apply? What level of economic integration do you want to see across Europe? Are there any financial decisions that should be beyond the reach of the EU?
The line should be drawn somewhere, as otherwise the EU will become a closer and closer economic (and political) union, with less room for individual countries to set their own policies.
Forgetting the own agenda US-based 'corporate-focused news outlets' have. Fair and balanced is not at home there. I can remember that the same publications have predicted the collapse of the Euro, the Eurozone and the EU for today evening, tomorrow, next week, next month, next year, within the next ten years, ... Personally I give nothing to an article where an author (and not the 'Wall Street Journal') of a newspaper makes some wild claims. Othesr made similar claims (Nigel Farage, Boris Johnson, the whole armada of UK's EU skeptics). That they say something does not make it wrong or right (well, sometimes it is plain wrong like the "the UK pays 350 Million pounds a week to the EU").
The UK for example has lots of people claiming that the EU is not democratic enough. The same country has obstructed giving more power to the EU democratic institutions. Their real point was not that problem, but that they (the UK) don't what to be part of a European political union. Democratic or not.
People make all kind of claims how economic policy is dictated and obstructed in the EU: either its the EU which dictates it, or the Germans are dictating it, or countries like Germany, France or Greece are IGNORING the EU, or the Germans say that there are blocks from whole groups of countries, you'll find for everything articles in some newspaper.
> you'd have heard about the example of the Eurogroup Working Group dictating the policies of the Eurogroup.
That's one of the Varoufakis myths. The Eurogroup is the coordinating group of the finance ministers of the Euro area. The Eurogroup Working Group is not 'dictating' the policy of the German finance minister or any other finance minister. Here, the German finance minister and the finance ministers of the Bundesländer also has large advisory staff in his ministry, possibly more than you'll find in Brussels. We have the Bundesbank, research institutes, the European Central Bank, parliaments, etc. Believing the Euro Group financial and economics policies is being 'dictated' by a group of advisors to the Eurozone Finance ministers is fully misleading and plain wrong.
> None of these people are democratically elected, yet they are setting the financial policy for all members of the Eurozone. Does that not concern you in the slightest?
They don't do what you say. So it does not concern me.
> The line should be drawn somewhere, as otherwise the EU will become a closer and closer economic (and political) union, with less room for individual countries to set their own policies.
The Euro countries will have a closer and closer economic and political union. That's absolutely fine with me. Countries may have different speeds with that integration, but generally I'm all for it. Then we have the regional level, which is also pretty strong. Currently one of the huge tasks is still improving the integration of current members, not so much deepening the union. For example getting the countries of Eastern Europe better integrated and improving their economies. But that's always a mix of EU policy and local policies.
The simple reason is that member states can leave the EU. Brexit. Only when member states can't exit anymore, European democracies will have been killed for good. For now, they live.
But sure, it is somewhat sad that exit is pretty much the only meaningful way of democratic self-expression left to EU members...
I'd recommend watching the whole talk I linked to in my earlier comment if you get the chance.
That's a very simplistic view. If Germany would actually control the Euro, the ECB (European Central Bank) monetary policy would look quite a bit different.
Greece didn't protest when they took the money. They protested when they had to pay it back and called that 'undemocratic'.
They protested when they couldn't pay it back.
Furthermore, you do realise that the Greek bailout was just a bank bailout in disguise, right?
http://www.dw.com/en/most-of-greek-bailout-money-went-to-ban...
"Since the Greek debt crisis began in 2010, the southern European country has received two bailouts from international creditors and is currently on its third. During the first two "adjustment programs," as they're known in bureaucratic parlance, Athens received some 216 billion euros.
Of that amount, the ESMT's study found that 86.9 billion went toward debt repayments, including 9.1 billion in repayments to the International Monetary Fund (IMF), 52.3 billion was spent on interest payments, 37.3 billion was used for bank recapitalization and 29.7 billion was doled out to provide incentives for investors to get involved in the private sector.
Only 9.7 billion euros, according to ESMT, was directly contributed to Greece's fiscal budget or to kickstart the Greek economy."
What I said, they didn't protest when Greece took that money.
That the money given to them was for paying back the debt of Greece against banks is nothing new.
The problem of Greece at that time was not to 'kickstart the Greek economy'. They needed money to survive the weeks and days.
I doubt Greece wanted to go that route, once it was clear to them what was about to happen. Actually the left wing government had to learn it quickly that semli-democratic decisions about other people's money is worthless, when one needs even more money. And they did.