SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Brexit vote: What just happened and what comes next?
With only approximately two more months before a default no-deal "hard Brexit," the British Parliament has decisively rejected Prime Minister May's proposed plan for leaving the European Union.
There is a no confidence vote in works which, if successful, will dissolve the government and force another general election.
See also: Live: Latest as MPs debate no confidence vote
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
British Parliament Rejects (Only) Brexit Plan
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 105 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
For recreational use only.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 17 2019, @01:12PM (2 children)
If ever you see an actual intelligent person talking about Brexit (or anti-EU in general): this is where the criticism is most sound.
The EU is seen as undemocratic because it is big and bureaucratic. It is naturally so that if you are in a bigger group of people, you and your neighbors have less impact on the whole. The bureaucracy is worse in some mainland EU countries compared to the UK, and naturally the EU is a mix, and being big and dealing with far more variation easily tens to grow the bureaucracy. All valid points.
It is very sad that this type criticism still completely misses the point. First of all it assumes that the UK is somehow more democratic than the EU. I doubt that (the UK uses a very indirect system and has many failings worse than the EU (FPTP, hereditary peers, and even the queen wields actually some power). Some of these are obvious watching the whole politics unfold in parliament recently). It is also sometimes assumed that the power that current "undemocratic" aspects of the EU wield is greater than the power wielded by the executive branch the individual countries (the EU commission, which for all its failings, is mostly a lapdog of individual governments, who would pull exactly the same shit, but now at least controlled by the fact that their are multiple governments to deal with)
The more important point is that a true democracy does not really work well at higher levels. They are mostly popularity contest (populism) or they slowly change into a stagnant bureaucracy. Despite failing at the federal level, the US has a big advantage there in that individual smaller states can be (not always are) reasonably good democratic units where people participate and make a difference. What happens above these smaller units is I think badly suited for a functional democracy. I think there is nothing wrong with having indirectly chosen EU leaders, I do think however their power should be severely limited and a much stronger democratic system needs to exist far _below_ the current country level.
See how idiotic it is that Scotland and Catalonia (and many other areas actually) want to leave the UK/Spain but want to stay in the EU? There are many areas where people are not actually happy with their government, but they do see sense in belonging to a super-state when it comes to development, defense or trade-agreements etc.
There is this idea that indirect voting is somehow undemocratic and bad. It may be undemocratic, but it does make sense for a manageable system that is beneficial for society. Most people are simply not very capable of seeing beyond their own garden. It may be undemocratic to not to allow them to decide on the bigger things, but honestly, it would be better for society if they actually did not. The idea that if you do not vote, or vote 3rd party or whatever is a lost vote is a good example of what's wrong with our thinking. We actually believe we are worse off when others decide _even if we absolutely do not know or have no opinion on it_. Its like I would grade my students papers without reading them and maintain it would be better like that than not grading them at all.
Trusting someone to take decisions is seen as bad. We should be able to do, know and have opinions on everything! Well, here's news: we actually do not. We suck at that (see UK referendum, not the outcome, but statements of people on why they voted in a certain way) Instead we should focus more on designing a system that makes sure good people end up at the top and limit the power that such top-people/systems have.
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Thursday January 17 2019, @05:11PM (1 child)
Great, but how do we do that? What chance is there of that ever being achieved for the EU? Democracy is the only system I know of that can reliably prevent tyranny. You talk about limiting power but it seems to me that the power wielded by those in charge of the EU and the economic / trade organizations that preceded it have tended to increase over time.
If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 18 2019, @04:49AM
Well, I want decentralised power. My state should only be concerned with criminal law and infrastructure. The rest should be handled by my local municipal government. Of course the line is not as clear, but decentralisation of power. Plurality. Diversity. Please decentralise.