EU Vote

[Robert]

Of course. You didn't really swallow all that crap about fraternity, did you?

[John G]

The Tory leadership race has been reduced to two (Theresa May, Andrea Leadsom) and the 150,000 Conservative Party members will now select a new Prime Minister.

The other 63.85 million citizens of this country will not have a say in this. The absence of democracy in this process immediately after Brexit is of course highly ironic. Will be interesting to see how the "unelected Bureaucrats" in Brussels will treat the unelected PM from the UK come September.

The prime minister of the UK is not elected and never has been. Prime ministers are appointed by the Monarch, although in practice the appointment goes to the party leader who is able to form a majority in the House of Commons.

Interestingly, this is exactly the same in France, where the Head of State (the President), appoints the prime minister, although in practice this is whoever can form a majority in the Assembly.

Of course, in the UK the real democratic deficit is that in practice, if not in law, it is the PM who exercises the Royal Prerogative powers, thus giving him the combined authority of a head of state and head of government.

[Ginger]

... that are good for themselves.

And therein lies the crux of the matter. The EU's deal with the UK was very good for the EU, much less so for the UK. That's what brought this situation about.

[Pcdunn]

The Tory leadership race has been reduced to two (Theresa May, Andrea Leadsom) and the 150,000 Conservative Party members will now select a new Prime Minister.

So, wait, we're now in a situation where both the USA and the U.K. may have a woman leader? Interesting!

[Robert]

Yes they're coming out of the woodwork.

[Wickerman]

So, wait, we're now in a situation where both the USA and the U.K. may have a woman leader? Interesting!

For a long time I've thought that if all the heads of government around the world were women, there would be much less conflict.

[Ginger]

For a long time I've thought that if all the heads of government around the world were women, there would be much less conflict.

I tend to suspect that myself.

[Svensson]

The prime minister of the UK is not elected and never has been. Prime ministers are appointed by the Monarch, although in practice the appointment goes to the party leader who is able to form a majority in the House of Commons.

Interestingly, this is exactly the same in France, where the Head of State (the President), appoints the prime minister, although in practice this is whoever can form a majority in the Assembly.

Of course, in the UK the real democratic deficit is that in practice, if not in law, it is the PM who exercises the Royal Prerogative powers, thus giving him the combined authority of a head of state and head of government.

Exactly my point. PM not elected, cabinet is not elected, Upper house is not elected, Civil Servants are not elected... and the UK "electorate" complain about EU politicians not being elected and unaccountable?

[Robert]

Svensson, please show me a civil servant in Britain with the power of Juncker.

As for democracy, this link shows that the German system is no better, in fact it's worse. People can wait weeks before finding out what they voted for.

http://www.rogerdarlington.me.uk/Germanpoliticalsystem.html#Executive

[Ginger]

Exactly my point. PM not elected, cabinet is not elected, Upper house is not elected, Civil Servants are not elected... and the UK "electorate" complain about EU politicians not being elected and unaccountable?

Perhaps if the EU system were adjusted to give the British people as much control over it as they have over their own government, they'd not want to leave?

[Svensson]

Svensson, please show me a civil servant in Britain with the power of Juncker.

The president of the European Commission is not a Civil Servant in the sense that a UK Civil Servant is. The European Parliament does have oversight over this appointment and Junker needed to be approved by a qualified majority. So again, the democratically elected body of the EU does have powers here.

As for democracy, this link shows that the German system is no better, in fact it's worse. People can wait weeks before finding out what they voted for.

http://www.rogerdarlington.me.uk/Ger...html#Executive

The thing is that I accept that there shouldn't be an "absolute democracy" (otherwise, if the people are consulted on every single decision, we would basically just have mob rule) and therefore, I am not complaining about the existing system in Germany or in the UK. Neither is perfect but both are a good compromise of how the two governments can function in their unique ways.

The big difference is that it is the UK Leave campaign who have vehemently complained about a supposed lack of democracy within the EU which means that, by extension, the Leave campaign would argue that the UK system is more democratic. In my view, the UK system is NOT more democratic than the EU system for some of the reasons I have listed before. As a result, I consider the Leave campaign's democracy argument hypocritical which morally weakens the UK's position in the up-coming talks with the EU.

[Svensson]

Perhaps if the EU system were adjusted to give the British people as much control over it as they have over their own government, they'd not want to leave?

I think they actually do if the UK had taken the EU parliament more seriously. But one needs to remember that the EU does not exist for the benefit of the UK but for all 28 member states. This is bound to suggest that the UK's particular influence is diluted on the European stage.

Just playing devil's advocate here, for the EU to be really effective, I actually think they need more powers:

- Fiscal powers so that the Greek debt crisis could have been better managed and therefore resolved.
- powers to distribute refugees amongst its member states. This way, Refugees could have been assessed, processed and taken care of and we would not have had these shameful scenes in the Balkans we had last summer.

Now I know that this may be a hair-raising suggestion for many people but if you look at the nature of the issues that the EU does have, I think they are a result of the EU being politically weak and due to it's setup, being slow to react to such issues.

[Geddy2112]

So, wait, we're now in a situation where both the USA and the U.K. may have a woman leader? Interesting!

Can folk not remember the last time the UK had a woman in charge? Dear God help us.. I just can't decide which of these two are worse. General Election required.

[Robert]

Hi Svensson

You're dead right, Juncker is nothing like a British civil servant. British civil servants are supposed to be neutral. I realise there is a big difference between theory and practice, but Juncker is in a different league entirely.

The thing is that I accept that there shouldn't be an "absolute democracy" (otherwise, if the people are consulted on every single decision

I was reading this and expecting you to continue with something like 'then everything would be up in the air all the time, and nothing would ever get done.' But instead :

we would basically just have mob rule)

Oh, I so agree. We can't have the Great Unwashed getting above their betters.

If what you are arguing is that the EU cannot function democratically and effectively without becoming a superstate - a United States of Europe - then I agree. In fact, it was clear back in 1975 that this would be the case. It is inevitable. Leave campaigners warned the public then that this would be the case. They were denounced as fascists and communists by the remainers, who swore that the idea of a superstate had never entered their heads. The precondition of course is that if the EU is to be a democratic superstate, its citizens must actually want this. We know the majority of the British don't, and I suspect the same holds true for many of the remaining countries. I would hope that there would be simultaneous referendums in all the remaining countries to see if these countries want such a superstate.

[Pcdunn]

She's no Iron Lady?

Can folk not remember the last time the UK had a woman in charge? Dear God help us.. I just can't decide which of these two are worse. General Election required.

I remember Mrs. Thatcher, of course, but it's been a long while, as political reigns go. Should the situation of both the United States electing a woman for President and the United Kingdom choosing its second female Prime Minister, we may enter a new age (acknowledging, of course, that many other world nations have already been there ahead of us.)

If a General Election was held, could someone else be chosen as the PM? My knowledge of the British electoral system is fuzzy at best, I'm afraid.