EU referendum, brexit and the aftermath

Ah see I got the the EU Commission and the EU council mixed up. Tx :)

Yes, things are so complex can't disagree. Voter turnout for the MEP election is usually a lot lower than for local elections.

It is already a problem in the UK where a lot of people are still uninformed about how the local system works (front benches? back benches? whips? FPTP/STV? Eh?) and there is definitely an added layer of complexity.

The EU did in the end move on CETA and TTIP due to protests/member states reaction to these.

Some people may not see this as a risk, as in "we get into power it'll be fine" it is one of the demands of Labour, and one May was able to concede with.

I do see it as a risk but then...staying/leaving the EU influences so many things it may not be the first concern of others.

how can anyone rationally think it is likely to get better outside the EU...

If you are a British born chef, carpenter, builder, plumber, driver, electrician, landscaper, decorator, glazier, warehouse operative, mechanic etc and would appreciate better pay and conditions I can see a certain (protectionist) logic.

Supply has been met by EU migrant workers. An unimaginative pragmatist (or a conservative) might say that market forces have been reliable whilst recent government has (rightly or wrongly) done very little.

tl:dr Altering the supply of labour for better pay and conditions is a thing.

Hence why, if we were to stay in the EU, I'd much rather have Labour MEPs than any others, who could actually push a case for the EU's baseline to be improved. I wouldn't trust Lib Dems or Change UK to look after working people.

In the current EU system what is a labour mep going to be able to do to improve the lot of “working people” all of those areas are under the control Westminster.

Also by working people do you mean working poor ?

What I mean is that, as you have discussed, there are certain 'baseline' working conditions mandated by the EU.

I argued that these were not good enough to actually guarantee acceptable working conditions in their member states.

If the argument that we need to stay in the EU to protect workers' rights is going to be viable, then that's going to need change pushed at EU level to extend the protections beyond where they are now. That change is unlikely to be supported by economic liberals.

I'm not sure if it is accurate to say the Commission is "massively more powerful" than the Parliament, as what it can actually do is limited by the need for Parliament's amendments in committee, and approval at plenary level.

The commission has a range of powers that the parliament doesn’t have - the ability to initiate legislation and set budgets for instance. Yes, it depends on the parliament to approve stuff, but so? Like in the UK, which is the more powerful body - parliament or the lords? Obvs parliament, even tho it’s dependent on the lords to ratify its shit. Just because there’s some constitutional checks and balances doesn’t mean that power can’t lie more in one place than another.

Also, the commission gets up to a bunch of extra-curricular shit. Going back to Greece, it wasn’t the EU parliament in the troika, it was the commission. That’s an expression of power.

True, but the Lords doesn't have the power to veto legislation made in the Commons, whereas the EP can block laws made in the Commission. The Commons can (in limited circumstances, and with limited success) initiate legislation as well.

The Commission is powerful. But is that really a big problem if there are also democratic institutions that can set its boundaries and then limit its powers?

Yes? What justification is there for situating executive authority in an unelected body, even if there is an adjacent democratic institution which has some nominal check on its authority?

it’s also very easy to overstate the power of the parliament’s veto. Yes, it can reject legislation, but there are numerous circumstances under which the commission and council are not legally obliged to recognise that rejection.

The Commission is powerful. But is that really a big problem if there are also democratic institutions that can set its boundaries and then limit its powers?

Well they entirely frame the window of debate. Only ideas comfortable to the Commission will ever be discussed.

So if (to the average person) Brussels looks out of touch and unaccountable ... it’s hard to argue it isn’t.

But if I understand the commission correctly, our government appoint our commissioner as one of the 28. So if they are out of touch and unaccountable - that's our fault.

Yes. The Commission is indirectly democratic.

People in this country who whinge about the EU being undemocratic boil my piss. We have a hereditary monarchy, a second chamber based on a heriditary system augmented with political patronage and a first chamber that is elected through a system that is set up to perpetuate a two party system.

Let's get our own house in order before we whinge about other political structures.

Let's get our own house in order before we whinge about other political structures.

Yeabut, bolting on a larger, more cumbersome and opaque system on top was never really going to help in this respect. And given the chance, anyone who wants to get our current system in order would jump at the opportunity to shed one layer they didn't like. See Mr. Cummings

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

Whataboutism is not what @andyp did there.

It is valid to point out that someone is complaining about one instance of a thing whilst not complaining about another instance of it. They are displaying hypocrisy, as @andyp pointed out.

Whataboutism is when you use a spurious, non-related criticism to imply hypocrisy where none exists - as defined in the wiki link you used in lieu of a post. e g. "It's a bit rich to moan about the undemocratic commission when you are lynching negroes at home." (Example drawn, again, from your wiki link).

nah, the “and you are lynching negroes” example is specifically human rights based. You counter a human rights thing with a human rights thing. E.g. “it’s a bit rich to complain about our human rights abuses when you are abusing human rights”

But most who want out of the EU would also be happy getting rid of or reforming that second unelected chamber in the UK.

I'd agree that the EU commission is too powerful and the description of it being like the civil service doesn't really wash. I can't remember the last time the head of the civil service announced his view on the future of the UK or they proposed new UK laws.

If you can't vote them out it's hard to view the commission as democratic.

Let's get our own house in order

Increased direct-democracy? Referendums?

Please no.

It is valid to point

More an interesting observation, not a persuasive argument because it’s a switch.

I’ve never under stood why whataboutism is seen as some kind of silver bullet argument killer!

This might interest some people...

https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/the-brexit-party-london-tickets-61755310797

On a vaguely related note James Goddard goes to Liverpool

https://twitter.com/paul_0l/status/1130126244941574144?s=21

• Mashton has stolen my hat!
  
• But you are wearing pink socks, how can you possibly comment on Mashton whilst the pink sock debacle continues
  
• Etc
  
  

Whataboutism misdirects, deflects, refuses to engage with the actual point.

I see your point, but equally a real world example would be more meaningful.

One cyclist kills a pedestrian, front page new for months, new laws on cyclists. If anybody mentions 1800 people killed by motorists, that wataboutism.

Those things can be compared - my socks and Mashtons uncontrollable millinery related cleptomania cannot.

Whether road deaths caused by cyclists and motorists should be compared is a question that depends on the context of the discussion.

Highly effective whataboutism deflects to a subject that is plausibly related, of course.