Why Vote Leave in 4 webms

The mandate is given by a majority vote system. The majority of European governments, including the Welsh and the Scots, have alternative or single transferable vote systems for this mandate. Britain is one of the few who do not.

Deriding the EUP as some false democratic forum yet failing to confront the issue that serious voting reform scandalously failed to pass through Westminster is a joke. 'Law makers' in Westminster are accountable to party politics, immunized to the general democratic ideal they themselves stand for which is on a constituency by constituency basis. Which is more 'democratic'?

A Tory cabinet reshuffle.
A UKIP success swing.
A need for a General Election post-Brexit.

Fuck off back to Holla Forums, cunt.

Who profits from Britain leaving the European Union under current circumstances?

It won't be the left.

Where do you think you are? This is Holla Forums bitch.

Good. All the more reason to support a brexit.

The Europarl has no qualified right of initiative, it must always beseech the Commission if its members want to legislate. In Britain, we have Private Members Bills and Bills from the Opposition. Does the EU? Everything about the Europarl from its apportionment to its procedures screams of pseudo-democracy.

Juncker's mandate, he will claim, comes from the fact that the greatest share of the EU electorate voted EPP. But he, his centre-left rival Martin Schulz and his liberal rival Guy Verhofstadt are were already committed to the same manifesto. Martin Schulz appears as author on the same Five Presidents' Report that will soon lock the Eurozone in neoliberalism for perpetuity, as Verhofstadt is probably worried that it doesn't go far enough.

In Western Europe this sham has led to the rise of populists amoung the population that has realised that this is the only way you can fight the system. This effort has been retarded by the institutional overrepresentation of smaller, financially dependent, member states whose MEPs align with the ruling EPP-S&D-ADLP cartel.

That's fine, Lenin, but you'll find that most Brits value our democratic institutions. This is for them.

None of these are consequences of a Vote to Leave and none of these are probable.

It once again betrays your warped priorities. Lost franchise over fiscal policy isn't worth the risk of some future ultraconservative government abolishing parental leave.

The reenfranchised public.

>No unqualified right of initiative

Mein Gott.

They are not probable. They are set in stone.

The Remain cabinet including the PM will lose the confidence of the house, and by extension, as the entirety of the Tory party will argue, the electorate.
You know full well what a leave campaign means for UKIP.

A General Election must happen for the new government formed by internal Tory opposition to be considered democratic.
I value the democratic institutions of my nation so much I can see through the appalling rhetoric espoused by leave campaigners.

As though the threat of 'democratic reform', from an overly-zealous Right Wing majority whose entire initiative is dependant on soap-box policies, doesn't overshadow the potential need for reform to the three chambers of the EUP is absurd. Parliamentary statute and constitutional law will not remain unscathed.

About as pseudo-democratic as Westminster. Private Members Bills are almost always party initiatives made by the backbenchers of the house majority, and are almost always blocked by the majority where the initiative does not represent cross-party consensus; social housing reforms and disability allowance reforms were stopped in this manner.

Even still, while the EUP lacks a dedicated bill submission process, it can still vote to block the drafts of the commission. The disadvantage faced stems from the constituent members of each nation who are either Euroscpetics, or Europhiles - 'financially dependant' - members who want to landslide bills. The idea that European members are passing through constitutional reform to correct the issues faced by the Parliament when Eurosceptics inevitably veto / no show the entire process is unsurprising.

And the idea that the commission is some fucking clique intransparent; when the Commissioner comes from the Council of member states.

Your entire post can be summed up as the surprise that Pro-EU member states have circumnavigated the inevitable blocks of far-right populists to bring to a halt the democratic functions of the entire body.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament

Tell you what lad, here's the wikipedia. Consider reading through it.

...

You appear to be lost
>>>Holla Forums

Sorry friend. You must think your at reddit.com or tumblr.com

This is Holla Forums territory bitch.

I don't see many Iron March threads lad.

I don't see much of those on either board.

You've been here a bit too long then.

That is simply false. The UK is less democratic than the EU.

I can see where this is going so let us just read the score:

Parliament

Europarl

I hear axes grinding, do you hear axes grinding?

Those seem to have utterly failed.

That image is the definition of shameless propaganda.

Honest question (you can answer on Friday), do you actually believe that or do you just post it because you love the EU that much?

How is that not correct?

I believe that it is difficult to have a worse democracy than the UK. A herd of pigs voting by shitting in buckets would be more democratic than the UK.

The greatest irony of all is that the vote-leave propaganda team who are crying about the EU being undemocratic are the same propaganda team who ran the NO to AV campaign.

That's not an argument friendo.

I'll choose one part to demonstrate. The image clings to the age of old lie that Commissioners are meek little civil servants subservient to the public (this is the very argument Roy Jenkins uses in the webm'ed debate). British civil servants aren't elected because they're not politicians, they don't exercise power, the just implement the law at the behest of ministers who are elected. This is normal everywhere. European senior civil servants aren't actually civil servants, because they write the law and, critically, call votes. In Europe, no law can ever change without the explicit initiative of the "civil servants".

What that image has essentially done is taken one aspect of EU pseudo-democracy and turned in into an argument against the British system (or any national system). This is advanced, cruel, propaganda, and is what Leave has had to deal this season. Half truths, scare stories and propaganda.

The commission is appointed by the national governments of member countries. Each country gets one seat. If you think that's undemocratic, the only possible fault can be with our own voting system.

The commission:
28 members appointed by the governments of the EU (one per country) and approved by the parliament. The president of the commission is put forward by the party that gets the most seats in the parliament. They can write laws.

The parliament:
Directly elected by the people of Europe via proportional representation. They pass laws or block them demanding amendments.

The council of ministers:
This has 28 seats and a president. One seat per country. They are filled by the relevant minister from the 28 democratically elected governments of the EU, relevance determined by the law being discussed, ie: if it's to do with sanctions, each country will send their foreign minister, if it's to do with the economy, each country sends their finance minister etc. Every so often the Heads of Government meet as well to advise and set an overall EU agenda. The council can also pass and block laws demanding amendments. They vote under two systems depending on the law, most of the time you need a unanimous vote or they'll use the QMV system (a kinda supermajority) where min. 16 countries representing at least 55% of the EU pop are needed to pass the vote.

Weak!

The party apparatus is required for both its submission and its support. Unaccountable personal loyalties then backed by a whipped vote.

Something which must be passed by the Government of the day, i.e. the subject of the no vote.
Unlike the EUP, which separates the role from the vote.
The Parliament can oust the executive while remaining separate from it.
Westminster cannot.

Like most democracies. But the EUP employs a wider use of select committees. 22 to 5, to be precise.

As compared to the EUP's capacity to recall a member or subject them to a committee review.

The executive only advancing bills which will pass. The executive cannot hence whip a bill through.

The majority is 2/3 and not part of the executive.

Constituencies are formed proportionally for each member state.
Had you skimmed the wikipedia page, you would know this.

MEP's can't be whipped by the executive? Shame!

I-I was pretending to troll all along!

I've been here two years.

We despise Holla Forums and you should go the fuck back.

It's not the truth you say, but the truth you don't say.

They exclusively call votes.

The Commission's draft documents and only ever the Commission's draft documents. To use a case example, the Port Services Directive was defeated three times before it passed. Every British MEP (except the one from Sinn Féin), trade union and industry organisation protested it. It passed in March on the backs of countries that don't have coastlines. Again, I refer to rotten apportionment which you never address.

This is a supposition. Opposition bills don't usually pass? Quelle surprise. The constitutional right that the Opposition has to propose laws is what is valuable here. The Europarl is structurally flawed in X number of ways whereas you're raising an argument against the conduct of the parties of the day. Understand the significance?

The parties do. The EPP and S&D support the Commission and defend the same European consensus. That's how the Commission's rekindled frankenstein bills slip by. Party whipping and patronage.

votewatch.eu/

It's not like the UK is any better. Do you think the people affected by the Conservative party's austerity measures are the ones who voted for them. In fact, the whole point of a democracy is that other people get to vote on issues which affect you.

So, are you complaining that the commission can't write laws or are you complaining that the parliament can only vote on laws written by the commission? They can't both be true.

No. The EUP is structurally different. Like all other democratic systems, it proposes legislation according to consensus. Not majoritarian principles.

This is what was first criticized in your posts, and you've simply ignored it.

votewatch.eu/blog/one-year-of-far-right-group-in-the-ep-high-participation-low-success-rate-in-shaping-eu-policies/

On the very first fucking page, regarding the point made earlier about how Pro European parties navigating around the issue of far right parties exploiting democratic procedure:

Far Right parties seeking to divide the EUP under an existential threat of irrelevancy to gain traction in a system they cannot out-flank.

Or are you surprised at the prospect of political parties voluntarily working with the commissioner to wield majoritarian principles in a consensus format to defeat isolationist populists manipulating the same foundation you hypocritically criticize?

Then why make it worse? Why make government even less accountable and even more alien to the people?

You can always change it when you win and anybody can win. One of the characteristics of parliamentary democracy is no parliament is binding on its predecessors, they are beholden only the British Constitution, all the more worrying then when the Constitution is turned into a vehicle for ideology as it is in Europe.

votewatch.eu/en/term8-cloning-of-animals-kept-and-reproduced-for-farming-purposes-draft-legislative-resolution-vote-legisl.html#/##vote-tabs-list-3

I gave you the site as evidence of party whipping being routine. You went mining for your own partisan bullshit.

The EUP doesn't propose.

I never said the Commission can't write. The Commission is the one who presents the drafts and the Parliament is the occasionally impertinent stamp machine.

Oh wow, you really are deluded, huh?
See

Right, and both the commission and the parliament are elected by you - one via PR and the other via the government. Where is the lack of democracy?

Why don't you read.

Because your criticism of the whipping is balanced on the idea that the capacity for political parties to actually vote through bills which the commission proposes is somehow flawed.

So, in plainer terms, what is actually wrong with the coalition of parties in the EUP agreeing to vote through the bills? The votes are not whipped according to what the commissioner wants, but what the parties want.

The parties operate on a principle of consensus.

There is no substantial lack of democracy that the EUP is not aiming to reform.

You are wrong on just about everything you've posted this thread.

And who is leader of the EPP, might it be the President Commissioner himself who appoints the other Commissioners? I think that might be so…

Not withstanding the fact that the Europarl can't initiate reform, the "EUP" is not the senior arm of European government and never will be.

Weren't you saying something about lies and half-truths earlier?

ec.europa.eu/about/index_en.htm

TL;DR: The Commission President is just one part of the selection process for members of the commission. His choices must be approved by other democratically elected bodies.

Given that the Commissioner is drawn from the Council, I think the only amendment required is the same one the EUP is fighting for, which is a correction of this.

Side by side, the criticisms of the Westminster model become more apparent as those for the EUP disappear.

Or do you just expect 750 delegates to sit on their hands, when, as you pointed out, they can so easily reach a majority, and not expel the commissioner until a correction is made?

correction of the issues faced by this*

Globalism should be top priority now. You can talk shit about democracy afterwards.

We don't despise Holla Forums, we are Holla Forums playing devil's advocate.

t. three years going on

Nice try chaim.

I don't get what you're trying to imply.

looking at the youtube profiles of those who comment on the videos I create and link here, no, people with the politics of Holla Forums are not even close to the majority of this board…

However it still is 95% white, male 20 something gamers.

Your close-knit group of online pinkos doesn't count faggot.

We are talking about Holla Forums here, are you lost? I don't have youtube friends

You probably don't have friend period.

Are you lost? This is Holla Forums's territory. It's just a facade.

This is one of the more retarded memes I've seen posted here.