The results of elections can be changed once the electorate realize they have made a mistake (after 5 years), or even sooner if the government lose their majority in between. In other words they are reversible. There is no such thing as a vote which stands for all time - democracy does not know the concept of permanence. Democracy means permanent, ongoing accountability.
'The UK has a much longer history of democracy' what incredible arrogance ! I think the Swiss or the Greeks would disagree with that remark. Whatever history may have been is one thing but Britain is one of the least democratic states in Europe now. Firstly because it is the only one party state left in the EU. (ie. where a party can rule with a majority based on only 38% of the vote) - that is, incidentally the only reason Britain got to this stage, because any other country would need a coalition of parties offering a referendum. Secondly because it is the only country in Europe with about 7-8 daily newspapers all on the same intellectual level as The Sun and all telling their readers how to vote. Thirdly because it is the least controlled country in Europe in terms of private donations for electoral spending - therefore, money buys results.
The UK clearly has a much longer democratic history than the EU. In fact the EU's weird version of democracy means it's subjects can freely vote as long as they come up with the result the eurocrats demand. It is a bit like a monty python sketch. If it was fiction it would be deemed as too far fetched.
We're not exactly getting balanced views of Britain on here. It does have a history of democracy to compare with many others. The Greeks had a huge slave population with no rights at all and have laboured under military regimes in modern times where any kind of opposition meant imprisonment or worse. Britain's electoral system returns governments which represent some of the people, so not ideal, but other systems create endless compromise coalitions which in the end represent no-one's views. Its press is sadly overwhelmingly owned by undesirables but its radio and TV reporting, for all its faults, is more representative and responsible than many others and is for the most part held in high regard. I'll say no more, except that there's little point in this debate in trying to points score between Britain and other countries in the world. Personally I wish to remain a part of Europe, but I've had enough of the criticism. No need to respond...I'm irritated but sure that there's little point in pursuing this. I'll take the wise course and stop reading the thread!
The EU and Japan have announced they have concluded negotiations for a giant free trade deal, AFP reports. Once completed it will forge an economic zone of 600 million people with 30 percent of global GDP. Under the deal, the EU will open its market to the world-leading Japanese auto industry, with Tokyo in return scrapping barriers to EU farming products, especially dairy. I wonder if this will have an effect on Nissan who would not have supply chain problems or tariff barriers if they moved to the EU?
Bearing in mind that the EU. only has a history of 60 odd years behind it then it is hardly surprising that your first sentence is true. But the same could be said for France or Switzerland. Democracy arose at the time of the formation of nation states and so it is hardly surprising that it takes the nation state as it's starting point. Creating a supranational democracy is not an easy transition, but it is the only real way forward without leaving our World at the clutches of multi national global players such as Monsanto and Google.
To a certain extent Theo you are right, but the reason we are going round in circles is because nobody tries to actually define what democracy is - so we are all arguing from a different angle. In fact, we call this or that country a democracy without defining the word - it is one of the most used words, but one of the least defined and therein lies the problem. By some sort of collective agreement it has been agreed to stop looking for a definition - as if the best way to stop people from fighting for something is to convince them that they have it already. So keep using the word for long enough and people will start to think that we have it.
Can I just clarify something that has been bothering me for quite a while. Do you actually believe all the stuff you write on the Brexit/Politics forums ?
So are you saying the EU eurocrats will eventually realise that democracy does not mean bullying it's subject into submission?
If you would enlighten me by stating exactly who you mean by the term Eurocrat then I may be able to answer it - you appear to use it as a collective term for anyone sitting in Brussels.
The people that ordered the Irish and other nations to vote again because they did not accept the result of the democratic process.
Undemocratic EU bullies Ireland into another vote - Telegraph EU begins secret drive to force Ireland to vote again on rejected ... But anyone who has watched the machinations of the EU over the past 20 years with a sceptical eye knew better. And so it has come to pass: the Irish government has now confirmed there will be another referendum next year in the expectation that its stubborn voters will this time come up with the correct answer. The Irish have been here before. In 2001, they voted to reject the Nice Treaty only to be marched back the following year to reverse that decision. This is European democracy, Henry Ford style: you can reach any answer, as long as it is yes. The problem that the Irish pose to the European elites is that they are constitutionally bound to hold a referendum on all issues such as these while other countries can ratify through their parliaments using government majorities or cosy coalition deals to get their way. Whenever any major development in the EU is actually put to the people, the answer is invariably 'no' as it was with Denmark on Maastricht, Ireland on Nice and Lisbon and France and Holland on the constitution. Had any of these been put to a referendum here in Britain it would have been rejected. The Irish foreign minister maintains that Ireland will receive 'concessions' in return for holding another referendum to allow the treaty to be ratified, as it must be by all 27 nations. In that case, will it not be a different treaty and therefore subject to re-ratification in every other country, or does that not matter? The fact that European governments dare not put any of these integrationist advances to a popular vote captures the essence of the EU: profoundly undemocratic, unaccountable and remote from the people it purports to represent.
The EU have not quite worked out exactly how democracy works. Perhaps they are confused with antics of the National Democratic Party of Germany.?
I presume that you are referring to the European Commission. I think that a great problem is that most people do not know the separate functions of the EU. Parliament, the European Commission, the Council of Europe, and the European Council. They do not know which of these are elected and which aren't. They do not know what happens in Brussels and what in Strasbourg. In fact the EU. Parliament is the only body elected by us - unfortunately they do not have the functions of a fully fledged parliament and this is one of the points which Martin Schulz and Macron want to address in a new European constitution - namely how to give the Parliament full powers. Everyone knows that there is a power struggle in Brussels - that Schulz was furious that the EU. Parliament would have no say in the Brexit negotiations until being asked to vote on the end deal (the threat was implicit that the M.E.Ps may reject the whole deal at the last minute). I agree that the pressure put on Ireland was unacceptable - and 99% of European citizens would agree with me. I do not know where this pressure came from but it did not come from the large body of elected MEPs.
Your sly digs will get you absolutely nowhere in terms of getting a reaction, which is obviously what you want.
It always seems odd to me that people can talk about the EU demanding that a country behaves in a certain way, when we see how the UK went back time and time again asking for opt outs, special deals and treatment, and now that they wish to leave still expect that they will get something to their advantage at the expense of the other countries.
Wherever this pressure comes from the eurocrats will ensure that the EU superstate is formed without consultation with the proletariat. History should tell you they have nothing but contempt for people that may oppose further loss of national sovereignty. It is a slippery slope.
I refer you to Frenchie's last post - Britain has been allowed special deals and opt outs since joining the EU. and has not been bullied into complying with anything which they didn't want. The British government voted for 95% of the laws passed by the EU Parliament - this is a higher success rate than for any other country.
