Brexit - Time to scrap it and start again?

[Dante Von Hespburg]

I don't disagree that whoever wins the Conservative Party leadership election is almost certain to have a difficult time in any forthcoming general election if the Brexit issue is not settled (or at least on the road toward being settled) prior to then. That said, it isn't definitive that Parliament will fail to reach any sort of consensus minus a general election. The dynamics are complicated, but its perfectly possible that Labour moderates in safe Brexit voting seats will push a Hunt/Johnson deal over the line in the hopes of disarming both the Corbynites and the external threat posed to Parliamentary stability by UKIP and the Liberal Democrats.

Indeed, Though of course that's if Johnson or Hunt can even get a deal, the EU currently have reiterated that their not going to renegotiate, plus their is a limited span when the EU are actually available to negotiate that some commentators are saying is basically not enough time. The deal on the table would most likely be essentially May's, with some re-wording (ironically May's might pass). For Labour MP's to vote in favour of the government though, could possibly happen, but i would emphasize this is the most unlikely of all outcomes, it would damage them and their party beyond repair as they would tie themselves in the blame of the post-brexit fallout, instead of being able to capitalize on it. You'd have to have a major fall-out with Corbyn, which is unlikely given that Corbyn is fighting their corner currently in avoiding placing a second ref as the central policy. Boris or Hunt might indeed be forced to take May's deal with presentation edits, to get out by the 31st, but of course politically that's still fraught as equally as no-deal is and may cause a snap-GE regardless. this is the most unlikely of all outcomes, it would damage them and their party beyond repair as they would tie themselves in the blame of the post-brexit fallout, instead of being able to capitalize on it. You'd have to have a major fall-out with Corbyn, which is unlikely given that Corbyn is fighting their corner currently in avoiding placing a second ref as the central policy. Boris or Hunt might indeed be forced to take May's deal with presentation edits, to get out by the 31st, but of course politically that's still fraught as equally as no-deal is and may cause a snap-GE regardless.

But there are at least three involved in this incident not just Boris Johnson. Himself, his partner (it takes two to create an argument) and the politically motivated neighbour. I cannot see there is enough mud here to stick, at least as far as we know. What happened to the recordings? Could there be more embarrassing incidents recorded? It seems to me that the neighbour probably had been eavesdropping well before he called the police, maybe over the course of months. Could that be the reason Johnson is so reluctant to admit to something that most couples experience at some time. The timing of this all seems very suspicious given this stage in the leadership contest. As far as I am aware fits of rage are not something associated with Boris Johnson. The interview with Ian Dale however, certainly didn't do him any favours and resulted in another days bad headlines. Unless anything else comes out, this probably won't cause long lasting damage.

I do agree, and his partner in fairness should have known better, she is his spin doctor, though that still then doesn't speak to him having the right team or skills himself for this. I personally think that the act of recording this was absolutely politically motivated, the issue for me that i've been banging on about is that it shows a severe error of judgement by Boris (and his team) in regards to the bread and butter of politics. The incident was damaging not because of it itself, but the way Boris and his people failed to spin it or even seemingly bother to control the story. This time, i do agree with you, its unlikely to cause lasting damage or be the 'issue' that breaks the camels back but it shows Boris has a severe weakness that may cost him later (lack of media skills), i suspect this is because at lower his antics are 'Boris being Boris' in the media, but at FO (which he should have realized in fairness) and then running for leadership the media are totally different beasts (as major found particularly) being very negative (Speaking about the right-wing press, the Guardian and Indy of course have always been gunning for him), its something he thus far has failed to compensate for, and i'm wondering (given his time at FO and the lack of ability to protect from the media, though May lets face it, didn't really have any driving reasons to defend him, its arguable if the post wasn't just to highlight how inadequate he is for office as a punishment position) if its something he can ever develop.

Aye, the handling today has been poor (again the story could have been gone and done with but for Johnson or his teams choices over this), it will die down. It'll be interesting though to see if Hunt can or will capitalize on this chance, i know yesterday he was keen to attempt to make this contest about 'Character' (Though Hunt has a lot of skeletons in his closet regarding expense scandals, so perhaps glass houses and all that).

[Basil II the B.S]

You are trying to tell me that Brexiteers are as eager to denounce those perceived democratic deficits of the UK's as they are of the EU's? I think not. The Brexit party afterall is called the Brexit party, not the fix UK's democracy party. At this stage this is just navel-gazing. The fact remains that Brexiteers in this thread and elsewhere have consistently accused the EU of being undemocratic for doing things that happen in some form or the other in virtually all western democracies, including the UK. And that, yes, is hypocrisy.

Actually no, the legislative process in the EU is overwhelmingly run by executive bodies rather than the parliament, unlike pretty much any other system where the parliament retains the general legislative power, while executive bodies get exceptional legislative elements like decrees.

The ECB has also virtually zero democratic accountability, which is another major issue, as well as formal bodies like the Eurogroup who don't even have a legal backing in EU treaties, yet de-facto adopt binding resolutions over democratically elected governments.

The last element is that the more physically distant and technocratic the institution is, the less democratic it is. As Juncker said: ''there's no democratic decision against EU treaties''. It's exactly like that. The whole ideology is known as ordoliberalism, which is essentially based on stripping competencies from democratic governments and giving them to supra-national bodies of experts that enforce treaties and can't be held accountable in front of the electorate. A fitting example off the essence of today's problems: the conflict between globalist technocracy and national democracy.

[Cope]

That is debatable. But hardly the point. And I really don't see how you reversed my argument there. Which was that I consider hypocritical the Brexiteer outrage over perceived democratic deficiencies in the EU, for things that happen in virtually all western democracies.

Evidently you have no appreciation for broader aspects of the debate. The argument is as much about the nature of the electoral unit(s) that should constitute a sovereign democratic polity as it is about the mechanics of the system itself. Trying to condense the entire discourse into a competition between the selection process of the Commission vs. that of the Prime Minister would be ridiculous even if the democratic deficit in both cases was comparable - which they clearly are not.

Using as an example the PM election in the UK. Then, you brought the Brexit party up to back up your claim that in fact the Brexiteers are more even-handed in their criticism of democratic deficiencies. At which point I reminded you that it's called the Brexit party. Then you start bringing up other parties. You want to expose more hypocrisy in British politics? By all means go ahead. But my argument still stands.

Your soundbite argument doesn't stand simply because you want it to. I've told you three times now that the democratic deficit related to the European Union being disproportionately larger than the deficit attached to Westminster is the central reason why the former is more staunchly opposed than the latter. You can continue to ignore that gaping flaw in your argument, but it just makes you look like the hypocrite.

[caratacus]

I do agree, and his partner in fairness should have known better, she is his spin doctor, though that still then doesn't speak to him having the right team or skills himself for this. I personally think that the act of recording this was absolutely politically motivated, the issue for me that i've been banging on about is that it shows a severe error of judgement by Boris (and his team) in regards to the bread and butter of politics. The incident was damaging not because of it itself, but the way Boris and his people failed to spin it or even seemingly bother to control the story. This time, i do agree with you, its unlikely to cause lasting damage or be the 'issue' that breaks the camels back but it shows Boris has a severe weakness that may cost him later (lack of media skills), i suspect this is because at lower his antics are 'Boris being Boris' in the media, but at FO (which he should have realized in fairness) and then running for leadership the media are totally different beasts (as major found particularly) being very negative (Speaking about the right-wing press, the Guardian and Indy of course have always been gunning for him), its something he thus far has failed to compensate for, and i'm wondering (given his time at FO and the lack of ability to protect from the media, though May lets face it, didn't really have any driving reasons to defend him, its arguable if the post wasn't just to highlight how inadequate he is for office as a punishment position) if its something he can ever develop.

Aye, the handling today has been poor (again the story could have been gone and done with but for Johnson or his teams choices over this), it will die down. It'll be interesting though to see if Hunt can or will capitalize on this chance, i know yesterday he was keen to attempt to make this contest about 'Character' (Though Hunt has a lot of skeletons in his closet regarding expense scandals, so perhaps glass houses and all that).

We agree then, it isn't just about any altercation, it is about that interview by Ian Dale yesterday. Johnson refused to be drawn on explaining it and sunk into his persona of "bumbling Boris" as a means of deflection. It worked well with his fans in the audience who started to boo Dale, but it didn't look good and seemed both evasive and insincere. This false persona which he developed and continues to portray, works well with a great many gullible shallow minded people and I am sure Tory HQ feel it will win over many voters in a GE. But this contest is about selecting a PM and party leader who will salvage what is left of the Conservative party's reputation, and I doubt it will work for that. To me he seems more akin to a part in "Litte Britain" than a PM, but given what has gone on before he wouldn't be any worse. Hunt however is May MK2 and is another Brexit can kicker. Whether it Johnson or Hunt selected, I'd say the Conservative party is set to remain in a position of crisis and Brexit with it.

[Alastor]

Actually no, the legislative process in the EU is overwhelmingly run by executive bodies rather than the parliament, unlike pretty much any other system where the parliament retains the general legislative power, while executive bodies get exceptional legislative elements like decrees.

The ECB has also virtually zero democratic accountability, which is another major issue, as well as formal bodies like the Eurogroup who don't even have a legal backing in EU treaties, yet de-facto adopt binding resolutions over democratically elected governments.

The last element is that the more physically distant and technocratic the institution is, the less democratic it is. As Juncker said: ''there's no democratic decision against EU treaties''. It's exactly like that. The whole ideology is known as ordoliberalism, which is essentially based on stripping competencies from democratic governments and giving them to supra-national bodies of experts that enforce treaties and can't be held accountable in front of the electorate. A fitting example off the essence of today's problems: the conflict between globalist technocracy and national democracy.

The EU has a number of bodies that can issue legal acts it's true but the majority of its binding acts require the approval of the two parliament "chambers" for lack of a better term. As for executive bodies, I would consider the EU to be better at that than, or at least on par to for instance the US, which is considered a proper western democracy by most, where the president with his executive orders can do nearly whatever he wants. Besides, just like in the US it takes the foregone approval of parliament/the legislative branch for the commission to adopt a non-legislative act. In other words same difference.

Regarding the ECB, I wonder what exactly is the democratic accountability of other central banks? And the Eurogroup should be formalized by treaty I agree. If it is to wield the influence it does. But that of course is more EU, not less EU. As it stands the Eurogroup has little to do with the EU and more to do with member-states choosing to participate in that body. Hardly sth that can be blamed on the EU.

And about your final point, distance, to which I will also add size. Of course I agree, it's a general principle that you can't possibly have the same degree of democracy in a small commune of 20 people as you can in a continent of 500 million people. But this is a problem that exists again in all democracies and sth we have accepted as a drawback because we understand that the level of force and influence we can have and what we can win for ourselves on the global stage also increases with size. So we banded together and we created these flawed democracies. Arguably the degree of democratic loss is not exactly proportional to the increase in size/scale though, while power at the very least is. As I have argued already, I don't believe the UK to be particularly more democratic than the EU. It's already too big for that.

Anyway, to conclude, do I believe that EU and national-level institutions/system should be more democratic in general? I sure do. And there are ways, thanks to technology in no small part, that could allow us in the future to have a more democratic system. Hell, personally I'm a proponent of some rather radical reforms to our so-called democratic system indeed. But to sit here and watch as the EU in particular is singled-out is not sth I'm prepared to do. That is a hypocrisy I will have to call out.

Evidently you have no appreciation for broader aspects of the debate. The argument is as much about the nature of the electoral unit(s) that should constitute a sovereign democratic polity as it is about the mechanics of the system itself. Trying to condense the entire discourse into a competition between the selection process of the Commission vs. those of the Prime Minister would be ridiculous even if the democratic deficit in both cases was comparable - which they clearly are not.

Evidently, right. And the evidence that makes this bizarre assessment so evident is what exactly?

Your soundbite argument doesn't stand simply because you want it to. I've told you three times now that the democratic deficit related to the European Union being disproportionately larger than the deficit attached to Westminster is the central reason why the former is more staunchly opposed than the latter. You can continue to ignore that gaping flaw in your argument, but it just makes you look like the hypocrite.

And you haven't refuted that argument simply because you want to have done so. Until you do yes, my soundbite argument stands.

What proof have you provided that the deficit is "disproportionately" larger anyway? How can you even prove sth like that definitively when even democratic indexes themselves are debatable at best. I would be willing to accept that the EU has a larger democratic deficiency (as mentioned above it makes sense due to size), but not a disproportionately larger one. And I would subscribe to the idea that the correct approach is to attempt and remedy democratic deficiencies wherever they are. But when you have a group of people lambasting one side for such deficiencies while running to the nurturing bosom of another likewise deficient entity and to hell with consequences, that is sth that I can fairly criticize.

[Basil II the B.S]

The EU has a number of bodies that can issue legal acts it's true but the majority of its binding acts require the approval of the two parliament "chambers" for lack of a better term. As for executive bodies, I would consider the EU to be better at that than, or at least on par to for instance the US, which is considered a proper western democracy by most, where the president with his executive orders can do nearly whatever he wants. Besides, just like in the US it takes the foregone approval of parliament/the legislative branch for the commission to adopt a non-legislative act. In other words same difference.

The difference of political power between the US Congress and the European parliament is humongous as the latter is actually kind of irrelevant. The Senate and the Council of the EU are comparable but the problem remains, one on paper is legislative, the other is executive and also works by consensus, which isn't an open vote. It gets tricky. Also keep in mind that US states elect their own governors and their own chambers, separately from the representatives that go to Washington. If it worked like the EU, then state governors would represent the state in the US senate.
Nonetheless, not everything is less democratic in the EU. The proportional system for instance allow better representation than the US.

Regarding the ECB, I wonder what exactly is the democratic accountability of other central banks?

This... depends on the state. Until the 80s, central banks were attached to the Ministry of Finance of the government. Then ordoliberalism took over with the idea that they needed to be separated because otherwise states would print money and cause inflation, so you had the divorce of central banks and finance ministries. As it works right now, for instance, the German government still has voice in the appointment of the head of the Bundesbank, but the Italian government can't appoint the head of the Italian Central Bank. Trump chose Powell for the Federal Reserve and other countries have mixed systems. It's a grey area that indeed is increasingly under scrutiny because the argument in favour of ''independent'' central banks is losing ground.

And about your final point, distance, to which I will also add size. Of course I agree, it's a general principle that you can't possibly have the same degree of democracy in a small commune of 20 people as you can in a continent of 500 million people. But this is a problem that exists again in all democracies and sth we have accepted as a drawback because we understand that the level of force and influence we can have and what we can win for ourselves on the global stage also increases with size. So we banded together and we created these flawed democracies. Arguably the degree of democratic loss is not exactly proportional to the increase though, while power at the very least is. As I have argued already, I don't believe the UK to be particularly more democratic than the EU. It's already too big for that.

I forgot to expand on the geographical distance earlier. The problem with it is that if voters are too distant, personal interests are not. What is incredibly common in Brussels and as well as Washington is that if you are a billionaire, you can simply pay a public affairs firm to lobby for your interests on daily basis in the capital, while citizens do not. At best they get to vote on regular intervals which can be every X years. and this causes a huge gap in terms of representation. This is the biggest flaw in the system at the moment, which results in a legitimate complaint from voters that ''people like me are not listened in Brussels/Washington/London''. The further you go from local government, the less personal accountability you have. Once you move to international organizations like for instance the WTO, then democratic accountability has basically vanished. Everything gets so sophisticated in terms of technicalities that most voters simply don't understand and even if they did they have no access to power anyway.

This is why I'm no fan of supranational bodies and their competences should be limited to the minimum. Recently the problem has got also worse, because the voters are starting to reject what's being decided for them at supranational level (see the various TTIP) and the elite has become obsessed that the best way to pass unpopular measures is to simply remove them from electoral pressure altogether. One example is the ''Fiscal Compact'' but another is theGlobal Compact on Migration. If a supranational body of experts manages migration, then voters can no longer vote their way out of what the experts decide for them.

Anyway, to conclude, do I believe that EU and national-level institutions/system should be more democratic in general? I sure do. And there are ways, thanks to technology in no small part, that could allow us in the future to have a more democratic system. Hell, personally I'm a proponent of some rather radical reforms to our so-called democratic system indeed. But to sit here and watch as the EU in particular is singled-out is not sth I'm prepared to do. That is a hypocrisy I will have to call out.

I understand your point because as I mentioned above, London has many of the same problems as Brussels does. I posted it in the previous pages as well, if there's something that the Brexit vote was about, it was a revolt against London.
Specifically ''politicians aren't listening to me, they are too busy doing the biddings of the cosmopolitan elite, the capital has nothing in common with my country anymore''. So you really aren't off-based.
.

[Cope]

Evidently, right. And the evidence that makes this bizarre assessment so evident is what exactly?

The evidence that you have no appreciation for the broader is aspects of the debate is inherent in your attempt to reduce the entire discussion surrounding the democratic deficit of the European Union down to a petty comparison between the appointment of the Commission vs. the election of the Prime Minister. No one who had a firm understanding of the issues would try and make such an asinine point. Do try to keep up: I grow tired of repeating myself.

And you haven't refuted that argument simply because you want to have done so. Until you do yes, my soundbite argument stands.

So just ignore the refutations and then claim that they don't exist? What a tedious strategy.

What proof have you provided that the deficit is "disproportionately" larger anyway? How can you even prove sth like that definitively when even democratic indexes themselves are debatable at best. I would be willing to accept that the EU has a larger democratic deficiency (as mentioned above it makes sense due to scale), but not a disproportionately larger one. And I would subscribe to the idea that the correct approach is to attempt and remedy democratic deficiencies wherever they are. But when you have a group of people lambasting one side for such deficiencies while running to the nurturing bosom of another likewise deficient entity and to hell with consequences, that is sth that I can fairly criticize.

Can you honestly not see how you've just torpedoed your own position here? You're accusing people of hypocrisy for paying more attention to a problem which you've literally just conceded is larger. It's as ridiculous as accusing a medic of hypocrisy for prioritizing an arterial perforation over a scratch.

[Alastor]

@Basil
Consider that in European democracies, unlike the US, cabinets are usually drafted from the legislative bodies so there is already a more blurred picture there. Regarding lobbies, I would argue that lobbies can be even more effective in smaller scale entities, like a Brexit Britain would be. The threshold would be lower, but still very far removed from the average voter to make it any more democratic. In other words the issue with lobbies is arguably not accentuated by supranational bodies, it simply becomes easier to observe due to the much larger scale involved (which increases the number of people affected/watching). Regardless I don't think the points you are raising contradict my position and in fact I largely agree with your concerns. Remember that my argument was never that the EU is perfectly democratic but that it is hypocritical and unfair to single it out and accuse it over shared deficiencies, like Brexiteers like to do.

[Basil II the B.S]

Oh I know we really aren't disagreeing much at all. I get your point that saying the EU is undemocratic while Westminster is a beacon of democracy is a ridiculous argument and it's fair. I just wanted to expand on what are the legitimate criticism of the EU that add to the problems to the already rather shaky national system we currently have. I'll have you have fun with Ep1c Fail.

[Alastor]

The evidence that you have no appreciation for the broader is aspects of the debate is inherent in your attempt to reduce the entire discussion surrounding the democratic deficit of the European Union down to a petty comparison between the appointment of the Commission vs. the election of the Prime Minister. No one who had a firm understanding of the issues would try and make such an asinine point. Do try to keep up: I grow tired of repeating myself.

Oh please. Bringing up a very valid example as to how democratic deficiencies are not an EU trademark but a common issue is hardly evidence for the nonsense you keep spouting.

So just ignore the refutations and then claim that they don't exist? What a tedious strategy.

Quite easy to ignore what's not there.

Can you honestly not see how you've just torpedoed your own position here? You're accusing people of hypocrisy for paying more attention to a problem which you've literally just conceded is larger. It's as ridiculous as accusing a medic of hypocrisy for prioritizing an arterial perforation over a scratch.

Now you moved from imaginary refutations, to imaginary torpedoes. I guess variety doesn't hurt. Sorry, but I did no such thing. Your example has nothing to do with what I "conceded". It is a disproportionately larger injury you describe while I made it clear that I categorically deny such a difference exists. In fact I denied that even a proportional difference exists. All I conceded is that in absolute terms it would make sense if there is a bigger deficiency but absolutes mean little if the difference is so small. And as I have stated already, if it's there. I believe it to be very small. So again, my argument that it is hypocritical for Brexiteers to lambaste the EU for democratic deficiencies that are in fact business as usual in western democracies, including the UK's, continues to stand.

[Cope]

Oh please. Bringing up a very valid example as to how democratic deficiencies are not an EU trademark but a common issue is hardly evidence for the nonsense you keep spouting.

Your argument was not that democratic deficits are "not an EU trademark", it was that Brexit voters argue that they are. You still haven't provided a shred of evidence to support this claim.

Now you moved from imaginary refutations, to imaginary torpedoes. I guess variety doesn't hurt. Sorry, but I did no such thing. Your example has nothing to do with what I "conceded". It is a disproportionately larger injury you describe while I made it clear that I categorically deny such a difference exists. In fact I denied that even a proportional difference exists. All I conceded is that in absolute terms it would make sense if there is a bigger deficiency but absolutes mean little if the difference is so small. And as I have stated already, if it's there. I believe it to be very small. So again, my argument that it is hypocritical for Brexiteers to lambaste the EU for democratic deficiencies that are in fact business as usual in western democracies, including the UK's, continues to stand.

The European Union is a dysfunctional confederation, the only elected body of which not only has no ability to propose legislation but is also routinely returned off the back of voter turn outs so low they make student union elections look impressive. It's laughable for you to suggest that its democratic deficiencies are only marginally worse than those of Westminster. This, though, is actually besides the point. If you want to show "hypocrisy" on the part of people opposing the democratic deficiencies of the European Union, you will have to show either that they're being disingenuous in their criticisms or that they deliberately ignore the need for domestic reform. Since neither of these things are true (as is evidenced by the Brexit Party's stance on the need for parliamentary reform at home) you have no case.

[Alastor]

Your argument was not that democratic deficits are "not an EU trademark", it was that Brexit voters argue that they are. You still haven't provided a shred of evidence to support this claim.

I am not going to reread this thread for you. It is here, you can do it yourself.

The European Union is a dysfunctional confederation, the only elected body of which not only has no ability to propose legislation but is also routinely returned off the back of voter turn outs so low they make student union elections look impressive. It's laughable for you to suggest that its democratic deficiencies are only marginally worse than those of Westminster. This, though, is actually besides the point.

It is significantly more complicated than that and you know it. Elected officials delegate or decide effectively the same amount of things in the EU as in other western democracies. Legally that is everything. The European Parliament you casually dismiss can in fact fire the "all-powerful" Commission. Can the EU processes afford to become more streamlined? Oh sure, but that's a different discussion.

If you want to show "hypocrisy" on the part of people opposing the democratic deficiencies of the European Union, you will have to show either that they're being disingenuous in their criticisms or that they deliberately ignore the need for domestic reform. Since neither of these things are true (as is evidenced by the Brexit Party's stance on the need for parliamentary reform at home) you have no case.

What are you saying? You accept the Brexit party paying lip-service to deficiencies at home, if in fact it does even that, as proof that the criticism is not disproportionately levied against the EU and then you have the nerve to dictate to me how I can show "hypocrisy"? Seriously? I don't know if you think your argument is funny or sth but I'm not laughing.

[Cope]

I am not going to reread this thread for you. It is here, you can do it yourself.

"What I implied is that Brexiteers seem to pretend this is an EU-only issue. And that is hypocritical to say the least."

That was your argument. It is entirely consonant with my interpretation of it as offered above. You haven't offered any evidence to show that "Brexiteers seem to pretend that this [democratic deficits]" are an "EU-only issue".

It is significantly more complicated than that and you know it. Elected officials delegate or decide effectively the same amount of things in the EU as in other western democracies. Legally that is everything.

Complaints against the European Union's deficiencies are not typically complaints against representative democracy. If they are, then you can be fairly certain that the people making them also oppose Parliamentary democracy elsewhere.

The European Parliament you casually dismiss can in fact fire the "all-powerful" Commission.

Parliament can "fire" the Prime Minister too. What exactly is your point? I didn't say that Commission was "all-powerful", I said it was a scandal that the the European parliament not only has no power to introduce legislation, but it is elected off the back of historically abysmal voter turnout.

Can the EU processes afford to become more streamlined? Oh sure, but that's a different discussion.

It's not a question of streamlining, its a fundamental disagreement over the democratic nature of the governing polity. Believing the nation state to be the most optimal (known) unit for democratic governance doesn't make someone a hypocrite. You are free to disagree, not to accuse people with a different view of acting in bad faith or being hypocrites.

What are you saying? You accept the Brexit party paying lip-service to deficiencies at home, if in fact it does even that, as proof that the criticism is not disproportionately levied against the EU and then you have the nerve to dictate to me how I can show "hypocrisy"? Seriously? I don't know if you think your argument is funny or sth but I'm not laughing.

As I've explained countless times, the criticism is disproportionately levied against the European Union because the deficit is proportionally larger on the EU's side. Whether or not you personally agree that the deficit is proportionally larger is irrelevant: in order to sustain an allegation of hypocrisy you'd have to show that people who hold that belief are either doing so in bad faith or are deliberately blind to the deficiencies of Westminster. Neither is true and so your accusation is false.

[Alastor]

"What I implied is that Brexiteers seem to pretend this is an EU-only issue. And that is hypocritical to say the least."

That was your argument. It is entirely consonant with my interpretation of it as offered above. You haven't offered any evidence to show that "Brexiteers seem to pretend that this [democratic deficits]" are an "EU-only issue".

Is it? Let's see. When you harshly criticize an institution for being undemocratic, sth that you not only haven't disputed but if anything partook in yourself, and want to leave it so that another institution will be strengthened you implicitly state that this other institution is in fact not also undemocratic. Otherwise your argument is pointless. So what further evidence do you need to see? The very act of lambasting the EU for being undemocratic in pursuit of Brexit is clearly an indication that they believe, or pretend to believe, London to be not on the same boat. But it is. And a good example of that is the PM's election.

Parliament can "fire" the Prime Minister too. What exactly is your point? I didn't say that Commission was "all-powerful", I said it was a scandal that the the European parliament not only has no power to introduce legislation, but it is elected off the back of historically abysmal voter turnout.

My point? Nothing you didn't just reinforce. I'm not the one arguing the UK is less democratic than the EU, you are the one arguing the EU is disproportionately less democratic than the UK. As for the European parliament its powers over legislation go a lot further than you imply. The Commission that introduces legislation serves at the pleasure of parliament, as just mentioned earlier. And regarding turnout, you could have a point if you could show how the EU discourages people from voting in the Euro-elections. If you have no such proof, you have nothing to accuse the EU for.

It's not a question of streamlining, its a fundamental disagreement over the democratic nature of the governing polity. Believing the nation state to be the most optimal (known) unit for democratic governance doesn't make someone a hypocrite. You are free to disagree, not to accuse people with a different view of acting in bad faith or being hypocrites.

Right, so now it is about the supposed inherent democratic superiority of the nation-state, about whether an institution belongs to the right category instead of whether it is indeed undemocratic. Sorry but I won't bite. This has nothing to do with my position regarding the existence of democratic deficiencies. Though it is nice of you to acknowledge that Brexiteers are indeed nationalists. And/or willing to overlook, due to the bias you just described, democratic deficiencies provided the governing institution belongs to their preferred type (aka the nation-state). Which would make them hypocrites. I guess.

As I've explained countless times, the criticism is disproportionately levied against the European Union because the deficit is proportionally larger on the EU's side. Whether or not you personally agree that the deficit is proportionally larger is irrelevant: in order to sustain an allegation of hypocrisy you'd have to show that people who hold that belief are either doing so in bad faith or are deliberately blind to the deficiencies of Westminster. Neither is true and so your accusation is false.

And as I have explained countless times, you haven't shown that. In fact, I have argued you can't show that. Not only because it's not there, but because even if it was there it would be next to impossible to definitively prove. Making your argument effectively hot air. The allegation of hypocrisy stands due to Brexit itself. The outcome that Brexiteers seek. If indeed they weren't blind to the deficiencies of Westminster at the very least they would not be using this argument in pursuit of Brexit.

[Cope]

Is it? Let's see. When you harshly criticize an institution for being undemocratic, sth that you not only haven't disputed but if anything partook in yourself, and want to leave it so that another institution will be strengthened you implicitly state that this other institution is in fact not also undemocratic. Otherwise your argument is pointless. So what further evidence do you need to see? The very act of lambasting the EU for being undemocratic in pursuit of Brexit is clearly an indication that they believe, or pretend to believe, London to be not on the same boat. But it is. And a good example of that is the PM's election.

This pretense that two layers of democratically deficient institutions are as equally constraining as one is patently ridiculous. Truly laughable. Absurd, even. As is the final claim that to criticize the European Union is to endorse Westminster as absolutely optimal.

My point? Nothing you didn't just reinforce. I'm not the one arguing the UK is less democratic than the EU, you are the one arguing the EU is disproportionately less democratic than the UK. As for the European parliament its powers over legislation go a lot further than you imply. The Commission that introduces legislation serves at the pleasure of parliament, as just mentioned earlier. And regarding turnout, you could have a point if you could show how the EU discourages people from voting in the Euro-elections. If you have no such proof, you have nothing to accuse the EU for.

I didn't say that the European Union was anti-democratic, I said it had a democratic deficit which was greater than the United Kingdom's. An organization seeking to govern 500 million people which is so deliberately obtuse and detached from its own electorate that routinely struggles to get 50% turnouts in its parliamentary elections has no democratic legitimacy.

Right, so now it is about the supposed inherent democratic superiority of the nation-state, about whether an institution belongs to the right category instead of whether it is indeed undemocratic. Sorry but I won't bite. This has nothing to do with my position.

What do you mean "now its about the supposed inherent democratic superiority of the nation-state"? It's always been about that. The fact that you just ignored almost all of the significant reasons why people rejected EU democracy in order to make a garbage soundbite point serves only to prove how poor your analysis actually is.

And as I have explained countless times, you haven't shown that. In fact, I have argued you can't show that. Not only because it's not there, but because even if it was there it would be next to impossible to definitively prove. Making your argument effectively hot air.

What meaningless tosh. This isn't a criminal court: a well-reasoned political perspective isn't contingent upon it being "definitively provable". Anyone could employ the same asinine rationale you've used here in defense of any constitutional settlement they wanted. "What, you can't "definitively prove" that fascism is an undesirable ideology? That must mean that any criticism of fascism is effectively hot air!"

The allegation of hypocrisy stands due to Brexit itself. The outcome that Brexiteers seek. If indeed they weren't blind to the deficiencies of Westminster at the very least they would not be using this argument in pursuit of Brexit.

So you have no argument beyond "my argument speaks for itself". How unimpressive yet predictable.

[Alastor]

This pretense that two layers of democratically deficient institutions are as equally constraining as one is patently ridiculous. Truly laughable. Absurd, even. As is the final claim that to criticize the European Union is to endorse Westminster as absolutely optimal.

Not quite as absurd as the pretense that removing one such layer will matter much when its competencies will simply be absorbed by the other deficient institution. And I'm sorry but what are you talking about? Brexit is not an endorsement of Westminster? You yourself said Brexiteers favour national governments. Is Westminster not a national government now? Or will Britain be ruled by some other institution following Brexit?

I didn't say that the European Union was anti-democratic, I said it had a democratic deficit which was greater than the United Kingdom's.

Don't forget disproportionately.

What do you mean "now its about the supposed inherent democratic superiority of the nation-state"? It's always been about that. The fact that you just ignored almost all of the significant reasons why people rejected EU democracy in order to make a garbage soundbite point serves only to prove how poor your analysis actually is.

I'm talking about my position and our argument here. Not about Brexit. I covered Brexit with my edit.

What meaningless tosh. This isn't a criminal court: a well-reasoned political perspective isn't contingent upon it being "definitively provable". Anyone could employ the same asinine rationale you've used here in defense of any constitutional settlement they wanted. "What, you can't "definitively prove" that fascism is an undesirable ideology? That must mean that any criticism of fascism is effectively hot air!"

Said the person that keeps demanding proof and evidence for an obvious statement. But then again if you really want to play the proof game by all means provide your proof. It won't be my time you are wasting. Or did you miss that this was a comment that would spare you from having to prove sth you really can't prove?

So you have no argument beyond "my argument speaks for itself". How unimpressive yet predictable.

I'm sorry but for my argument to speak for itself I must indeed first have an argument. And as you wrote above this isn't a criminal court, a well-reasoned political perspective is enough.

Now lets see:
A-Brexiteers accuse the EU of being undemocratic and pursue Brexit.
B-Brexit strengthens the national government/Westminster.
C-Westminster also suffers from similar democratic deficiencies.
A+B+C-Brexiteers are being hypocritical in their critique.

Seems well reasoned enough to me.

[Cope]

Not quite as absurd as the pretense that removing one such layer will matter much when its competencies will simply be absorbed by the other deficient institution.

You're once again relying on two fallacious assumptions: first, that anyone who disagrees with your view as expressed here is necessarily acting in bad faith; second that favouring the United Kingdom's exit from the European Union is tantamount to endorsing no domestic constitutional change.

And I'm sorry but what are you talking about? Brexit is not an endorsement of Westminster? You yourself said Brexiteers favour national governments. Is Westminster not a national government now? Or will Britain be ruled by some other institution following Brexit?

I said it isn't an endorsement of Westminster as "absolutely optimal". Stop flagrantly ignoring the salient parts of my argument in order to give the impression that you're offering a cogent response.

Don't forget disproportionately.

Quite right. First good point you've made in a while.

I'm talking about my position and our argument here. Not about Brexit. I covered Brexit with my edit.

Your position - rather accusation - is predicated on an ignorance of the rationale of the people you allege to be hypocrites. I highlighted this hours ago when I said that "evidently you have no appreciation for broader aspects of the debate. The argument is as much about the nature of the electoral unit(s) that should constitute a sovereign democratic polity as it is about the mechanics of the system itself." You merely dismissed this very central element of the entire Brexit disagreement as being a "bizarre assessment" and pretended that it had no bearing on your allegation.

Said the person that keeps demanding proof and evidence for an obvious statement. But then again if you really want to play the proof game by all means provide your proof. It won't be my time you are wasting. Or did you miss that this was a comment that would spare you from having to prove sth you really can't prove?

A repetition of the "my argument is self-evident" claim. This really is a dreadful attempt at debating. I can't actually believe that someone, without any sense of irony, actually believes that to favour the United Kingdom's exit from the European Union is an act of hypocrisy so self-evident that it requires no further explanation. No one's even demanding that you prove your point irrefutably; I only asked that you provided evidence. Something. Anything.

I'm sorry but for my argument to speak for itself I must indeed first have an argument. And as you wrote above this isn't a criminal court, a well-reasoned political perspective is enough.

Now lets see:
A-Brexiteers accuse the EU of being undemocratic and pursue Brexit.
B-Brexit strengthens the national parliament at Westminster.
C-Westminster also suffers from similar democratic deficiencies.
A+B+C-Brexiteers are being hypocritical in their critique.

Non sequitur for all of the reasons I've claimed. Even if you could offer enough evidence to show that premise C was well-reasoned (which you can't and haven't because it isn't) you'd still have all your work ahead of you. In order to demonstrate an accusation of hypocrisy to be true you have to show that the alleged hypocrite is in someway acting in bad faith. Your belief that disagreeing with the notion that Westminster "also suffers from similar deficiencies" to the European Union is an act of bad faith in and of itself is, as I've mentioned, patently absurd.

Seems well reasoned enough to me.

Well I'm glad at least someone's endorsing your reasoning

[Alastor]

You're once again relying on two fallacious assumptions: first, that anyone who disagrees with your view as expressed here is necessarily acting in bad faith; second that favouring the United Kingdom's exit from the European Union is tantamount to endorsing no domestic constitutional change.

Considering you are the one that disagrees with me you are telling me that I assume you are acting in bad faith? Interesting. How exactly did you draw such a conclusion? As for the second "fallacy" as I said earlier paying lip-service to another cause doesn't mean all that much. So what if they are endorsing peace on earth? They are the Brexit party. That's their chief concern.

I said it isn't an endorsement of Westminster as "absolutely optimal". Stop flagrantly ignoring the salient parts of my argument in order to give the impression that you're offering a cogent response.

You mean I should stop ignoring your laughable attempts to move the goalposts until we land in a situation where you could actually construct a cogent argument? Or are you trying to tell me that in order for an institution to be endorsed as not undemocratic, which was what we were discussing, it has to be absolutely optimal. No? I didn't think so.

Quite right. First good point you've made in a while.

Careful, you might cut yourself with that wit.

Your position - rather accusation - is predicated on an ignorance of the rationale of the people you allege to be hypocrites. I highlighted this hours ago when I said that "evidently you have no appreciation for broader aspects of the debate. The argument is as much about the nature of the electoral unit(s) that should constitute a sovereign democratic polity as it is about the mechanics of the system itself." You merely dismissed this very central element of the entire Brexit disagreement as being a "bizarre assessment" and pretended that it had no bearing on your allegation.

I have heard enough Brexiteers on the radio to know you must be quite high indeed if you think most of them even understand the meaning of the word sovereignty. And again I will remind you this is the Brexit fiasco we are talking about. Not the "fix democracy in the UK" movement.

A repetition of the "my argument is self-evident" claim. This really is a dreadful attempt at debating. I can't actually believe that someone, without any sense of irony, actually believes that to favour the United Kingdom's exit from the European Union is an act of hypocrisy so self-evident that it requires no further explanation. No one's even demanding that you prove your point irrefutably; I only asked that you provided evidence. Something. Anything.

How is it such a repetition when we are discussing your argument in that section? And look who ignores actually salient parts of my argument to generate soundbites now. I will remind you I said that particular argument is hypocritical, not favoring an exit in general.

Non sequitur for all of the reasons I've claimed. Even if you could offer enough evidence to show that premise C was well-reasoned (which you can't and haven't because it isn't) you'd still have all your work ahead of you. In order to demonstrate an accusation of hypocrisy to be true you have to show that the alleged hypocrite is in someway acting in bad faith. Your belief that disagreeing with the notion that Westminster "also suffers from similar deficiencies" to the European Union is an act of bad faith in and of itself is, as I've mentioned, patently absurd.

Really? Do you actually know what non sequitur means? Because it's not that. And in order to demonstrate an act of hypocrisy what I need to do is show that someone's standards aren't as high/noble as they claim them to be. In effect here since Brexiteers accuse the EU of democratic deficiencies in pursuit of Brexit, it is enough to demonstrate that their preferred institution also suffers from the same problem and that they are aware. The ongoing PM election makes an excellent example of this. And being British citizens and politicians it is fair to claim they know how these processes work. Hypocrisy detected.

Well I'm glad at least someone's endorsing your reasoning

Better than nobody doing so. And I bet your reasoning will have zero endorsements after you sober up.

[Cope]

Considering you are the one that disagrees with me you are telling me that I assume you are acting in bad faith? Interesting. How exactly did you draw such a conclusion?

An accusation of hypocrisy is an accusation of arguing in bad faith. It isn't the same as suggesting that someone is merely mistaken. (Cue the inevitable pedantry over the definition of the word hypocrisy)

As for the second "fallacy" as I said earlier paying lip-service to another cause doesn't mean all that much. So what if they are endorsing peace on earth? They are the Brexit party. That's their chief concern.

This is simply a rearranged version of the same false deduction. The Brexit Party's primary concern being the United Kingdom's exit from the European Union isn't evidence that favouring the United Kingdom's exit from the European Union is tantamount - or even related to - endorsing no domestic constitutional change. You have literally offered zero evidence with regard to voter preferences vis-a-vis the United Kingdom's domestic constitutional settlement.

You mean I should stop ignoring your laughable attempts to move the goalposts until we land in a situation where you could actually construct a cogent argument? Or are you trying to tell me that in order for an institution to be endorsed as not undemocratic, which was what we were discussing, it has to be absolutely optimal. No? I didn't think so.

I don't know why you're having such difficulty with this concept. Supporting the United Kingdom's exit from the European Union doesn't imply that you think Westminster is without fault (ie optimal); it implies that you think it less suboptimal than the European Union. So you're correct that I don't think that for a institution to be "endorsed as not undemocratic" (weird wording) it has to be "absolutely optimal". Then again, I never made that argument in the first place so your point is functionally irrelevant.

Careful, you might cut yourself with that wit.

Better not had, I might end up hypocritically paying more attention to a scratch than a missing limb.

I have heard enough Brexiteers on the radio to know you must be quite high indeed if you think most of them even understand the meaning of the word sovereignty.

This is the prejudice which caused you to accuse people who voted to leave the European Union of being hypocrites. I knew it'd come out eventually.

And again I will remind you this is the Brexit fiasco we are talking about. Not the "fix democracy in the UK" movement.

You're implying that the two are mutually exclusive. On the contrary they're contingent upon each other.

How is it such a repetition when we are discussing your argument in that section?

"Said the person that keeps demanding proof and evidence for an obvious statement."
This is you repeating the claim that your argument is self-evidently correct.

And look who ignores actually salient parts of my argument to generate soundbites now.

Where's the soundbite from me?

I will remind you I said that particular argument is hypocritical, not favoring an exit in general.

The argument you accused of being hypocritical is the most common reason provided by people who voted to leave the European Union. So while you are technically correct, relying on pedantry to score a point is hardly worthy of praise.

Really? Do you actually know what non sequitur means? Because it's not that.

It means that you're argument is non sequential: that your conclusion (which you labelled A+B+C) doesn't logically follow your rationale (A, B and C). So yeah, it is that.

And in order to demonstrate an act of hypocrisy what I need to do is show that someone's standards aren't as high/noble as they claim them to be.

I don't think you could have chosen a softer interpretation of the word hypocrisy.

In effect here since Brexiteers accuse the EU of democratic deficiencies in pursuit of Brexit, it is enough to demonstrate that their preferred institution also suffers from the same problem and that they are aware.

It's reasonably amusing that a few lines ago you were arguing that Brexiteers were too ignorant to even know what sovereignty meant but now you're trying to convince me that they were informed enough to be hypocritical. You can't have your cake and eat it I'm afraid.

The ongoing PM election makes an excellent example of this. And being British citizens and politicians it is fair to claim they know how these processes work. Hypocrisy detected.

Pointing out the existence of a minor democratic deficiencies isn't "an excellent example" of anything other than the roundly acknowledged fact that the Westminster is itself imperfect. Though, for what must be the hundredth time, Westminster doesn't have to be absolutely optimal in order for someone to support leaving the European Union for democratic reasons and not be a hypocrite.

[Exarch]

It's apparent to everyone that Brexit is bad for the UK as a whole, so the question is, why did some British elites and political class push so hard for it?