The UK Referendum on Membership of the European Union

[SD_Film Artists]

While I feel the EU is in need of some reform I am yet to be convinced that we should leave, especially at the present time. It's important that we have the discussion but I wish we were having it at a time where the economy were not in a desperately poor state.

Indeed- The system not being perfect isn't a reason to move away from the system altogether. The average demographic voting for each side Only shows how the Brexist campeign is the old politics of reactionaries. As someone from North Norfolk, it shames me that we're one of the most Eurosceptic areas in the entire UK.

[The Qeiiam Star Cluster]

Who'se gonna cover for the 8 billion hole in the budget Britain's exit would mean?

The decreased costs from no longer having to spend money on the UK?

My mother (who is from England) tells me that historically, the French are the #1 obstructionists.

What does your mother still living in the time when de Gaulle was president of France have to do with Brexit?

[Ysoldia]

I stand by what I said earlier: an organisation with an unelected commission and council who make laws superior to those that govern entire nations is eerily similar to the Communist approach, ironically most of the commission are former communists. We should have control on our own borders our own laws and our own trade deals and the EU is a corrupt out of date system. And I think that Europe is better out of the European union not just the UK.

[Old Stephania]

I stand by what I said earlier: an organisation with an unelected commission and council who make laws superior to those that govern entire nations is eerily similar to the Communist approach, ironically most of the commission are former communists. We should have control on our own borders our own laws and our own trade deals and the EU is a corrupt out of date system. And I think that Europe is better out of the European union not just the UK.

I'll never understand the constant comparisons between the EU and USSR/Communism, the EU is clearly all-in on neoliberalist economics and it's one of the things I'd love it to reform.

[Frank Zipper]

... ironically most of the commission are former communists.

I took a quick look at them, and your claim doesn't stand up at all. Could you name the ones you think are former communists?

[Imperializt Russia]

... ironically most of the commission are former communists.

I took a quick look at them, and your claim doesn't stand up at all. Could you name the ones you think are former communists?

I can only guess he's referring to the handful that grew up in East Germany or elsewhere in the eastern bloc.
Most of whom are now right or centre-right figures. Like everyone else in the EU.

[Frank Zipper]

I took a quick look at them, and your claim doesn't stand up at all. Could you name the ones you think are former communists?

I can only guess he's referring to the handful that grew up in East Germany or elsewhere in the eastern bloc.
Most of whom are now right or centre-right figures. Like everyone else in the EU.

The number of those born in the eastern bloc isn't even close to being most of the commissioners though. Whatever way you slice it, the claim is just false.

[Alimprad]

I stand by what I said earlier: an organisation with an unelected commission and council who make laws superior to those that govern entire nations is eerily similar to the Communist approach, ironically most of the commission are former communists. We should have control on our own borders our own laws and our own trade deals and the EU is a corrupt out of date system. And I think that Europe is better out of the European union not just the UK.

I'll never understand the constant comparisons between the EU and USSR/Communism, the EU is clearly all-in on neoliberalist economics and it's one of the things I'd love it to reform.

I think he means what he says, that the lack of democracy is similair to that of the USSR, which it is.

[Imperializt Russia]

I'll never understand the constant comparisons between the EU and USSR/Communism, the EU is clearly all-in on neoliberalist economics and it's one of the things I'd love it to reform.

I think he means what he says, that the lack of democracy is similair to that of the USSR, which it is.

Apart from in every single way.

[Ad Nihilo]

I'll never understand the constant comparisons between the EU and USSR/Communism, the EU is clearly all-in on neoliberalist economics and it's one of the things I'd love it to reform.

I think he means what he says, that the lack of democracy is similair to that of the USSR, which it is.

In the same way that the political process in the UK is similar to that of the USSR. You do not get to choose who forms your government, who is the head of your government, or who is in the upper chamber. All you get to choose is who your local MP is. Clearly the UK cabinet = the USSR politburo.

[Imperializt Russia]

I think he means what he says, that the lack of democracy is similair to that of the USSR, which it is.

In the same way that the political process in the UK is similar to that of the USSR. You do not get to choose who forms your government, who is the head of your government, or who is in the upper chamber. All you get to choose is who your local MP is. Clearly the UK cabinet = the USSR politburo.

The NHS is stunningly similar to the Soviet model of healthcare.
Guess it must be binned.

[Old Stephania]

I'll never understand the constant comparisons between the EU and USSR/Communism, the EU is clearly all-in on neoliberalist economics and it's one of the things I'd love it to reform.

I think he means what he says, that the lack of democracy is similair to that of the USSR, which it is.

I'm open to being convinced but I never understood this argument either. When I look here is what I see:

• Eight democratically elected people from three different political parties represent my region in the European Parliament.
• My democratically elected prime minister represents my country in the European Council.
• My democratically elected government represents my country in the Council of the European Union.
• My country has a member on the European Commission.
• The European Parliament is composed of 751 MEPs elected via proportional representation every five years and spread across eight "parties" with some also non-aligned.
• The European Union has a direct democracy initiative in place when there are one million signatories across at least seven member states.

Would I like even more democracy and less beaureacracy in the EU? Absolutely, but I don't see how it's anything like the USSR or how it's lacking in democracy.

[Ad Nihilo]

But, but, but... These people keep making decisions like governing and things... I thought they were only there to get out of the way of the Market!!11!!!

[Ashworth-Attwater]

I hope the UK leaves just cuz' I'm bored and I'd like to witness the chaos that would ensue.

[Major-Tom]

I hope the UK leaves just cuz' because I'm bored and I'd like to witness the chaos that would ensue.

'Least you're honest.

[Angleter]

I think he means what he says, that the lack of democracy is similair to that of the USSR, which it is.

I'm open to being convinced but I never understood this argument either. When I look here is what I see:

• Eight democratically elected people from three different political parties represent my region in the European Parliament.
• My democratically elected prime minister represents my country in the European Council.
• My democratically elected government represents my country in the Council of the European Union.
• My country has a member on the European Commission.
• The European Parliament is composed of 751 MEPs elected via proportional representation every five years and spread across eight "parties" with some also non-aligned.
• The European Union has a direct democracy initiative in place when there are one million signatories across at least seven member states.

Would I like even more democracy and less beaureacracy in the EU? Absolutely, but I don't see how it's anything like the USSR or how it's lacking in democracy.

The problem isn't the electoral system (or at least, not so much). The problem is what happens in practice. The 'parties' in the European Parliament aren't the ones on our ballot papers. These Europarties can't honestly claim, as parties in national elections do, a mandate to govern or to select the Head of Government if they 'win' the elections, when they're nowhere near anyone's ballot paper. Doubly so when you can't be at all sure which Europarty the party on your ballot paper will actually be a member of when the EP finally reconvenes after the elections - some parties, including the runners-up in Italy and Czech Republic, only decided after the vote; while many others, including the winners in Belgium and Denmark, actively switched allegiance after the vote. Indeed, you couldn't even be sure whether the Europarty you were technically voting for would even exist by the time the EP actually sat (UEN in 2009), or whether it would need quite radical change to continue existing (EFD in 2014), or whether your vote would actually end up being claimed by a 'party' that didn't even exist when you crossed your ballot paper, either when the EP sat (ECR in 2009) or over a year after the vote (ENL in 2014).

National parties do this because nobody really cares about Europarties. Not that many people even know about them, or about the candidates they put forward in 2014 for President of the Commission. And that is the problem; that is the democratic deficit. In a normal democracy, everybody knows and cares what their vote really means - a vote for Labour in 2015, for instance, was a vote for a Labour MP who would form part of a Labour government, led by Ed Miliband as Prime Minister. Everybody got that. Even the branding need not be an issue - everyone in Bavaria knows that a vote for the CSU is a vote for a CDU government led by Merkel, and everyone in Britain in 1959 knew that a vote for the National Liberals or the SUP or the UUP was a vote for a Tory government led by Harold Macmillan.

But that relationship between your vote and the outcome, which, to be perfectly honest, is the most important thing about a modern democratic election, is not there in European elections. It's still not there after decades of the EU (and the EP) accruing more and more power. It's still not there even when they try to make the European institutions look like those of a normal democracy - 2014 was the first time the Europarties nominated their own candidates for President of the European Commission, and they even held debates between them; but next to nobody knew who the candidates were, especially outside their home countries, and even fewer people watched the debates. The turnout is low and keeps getting lower. The problem is inherent, and it won't change, save for the unlikely event (still unlikely, despite the best efforts of the European institutions) that a pan-European identity emerges.

And most importantly, virtually nobody decides their vote based on a preference for a certain Europarty or a certain candidate for President of the Commission - with the exception of Eurosceptics in some countries, almost everyone votes on national politics and national party loyalty. And most mainstream national parties are members of the EPP, S&D, or ALDE, who thus claim 'their' votes as a mandate to push forward their common platform, which unites them to the exclusion of everything else (seriously, they're now in a coalition and in the 2009-14 term voted together over 90% of the time), of further European integration. But as I've said, nobody actually voted for them, few people know who they are and fewer people care, and those few that do care can't even be sure which Europarty their vote will actually end up going towards. So it's a false mandate. If anything, European elections are proof that democracy means more than holding free, fair, and regular elections.

((I really ought to work on condensing this point into something that isn't a wall of text.))

[Old Stephania]

I think what you're describing Angleter may not be something British citizens are familiar with, but will sound much more like business as usual to someone from a European country with proportional representation. Parties will join coalitions, sometimes grand ones, they will switch allegiances and make marriages of convenience and this is what happens with the 'party groups' of the European Parliament. I think where I disagree with you is calling this undemocratic. We operate on a system of representative democracy whereby you cast your vote for a candidate and if they win that person has a mandate to operate on your behalf, which includes their deciding how best to accomplish their goals by working with other groups (or not).

Now, believe me, I wish politics were more straightforward and politicians did more to directly enact the will of their constituents but under a representative system of democracy we do have to have some realism and account for ambition. Maybe though one of the things we could look toward reforming in the European Union is how the rules of the game are played out with regards to such things as how a party in Europarl might switch coalition directly following an election.

[Ad Nihilo]

The problem isn't the electoral system (or at least, not so much). The problem is what happens in practice. The 'parties' in the European Parliament aren't the ones on our ballot papers. These Europarties can't honestly claim, as parties in national elections do, a mandate to govern or to select the Head of Government if they 'win' the elections, when they're nowhere near anyone's ballot paper. Doubly so when you can't be at all sure which Europarty the party on your ballot paper will actually be a member of when the EP finally reconvenes after the elections - some parties, including the runners-up in Italy and Czech Republic, only decided after the vote; while many others, including the winners in Belgium and Denmark, actively switched allegiance after the vote. Indeed, you couldn't even be sure whether the Europarty you were technically voting for would even exist by the time the EP actually sat (UEN in 2009), or whether it would need quite radical change to continue existing (EFD in 2014), or whether your vote would actually end up being claimed by a 'party' that didn't even exist when you crossed your ballot paper, either when the EP sat (ECR in 2009) or over a year after the vote (ENL in 2014).

You are pretty much grasping at straws here. You elect representatives on specific platforms in your constituency. They then go off and do what they need to do to implement policies from those platforms and will support policies outside of those on their platform to the extent to which they conform to values stated on the platform. They make alliances with like-minded people, rally behind some further representative to elect to executive roles, etc.

That is what happens in every single case of representative democracy ever. There is not a single difference between this and what happens at the national level, except for the fact that there is one extra degree of "representatives of representatives". Which there should be. Because you are talking about representing complex demographics in a population pool of 500 million.

National parties do this because nobody really cares about Europarties. Not that many people even know about them, or about the candidates they put forward in 2014 for President of the Commission. And that is the problem; that is the democratic deficit. In a normal democracy, everybody knows and cares what their vote really means - a vote for Labour in 2015, for instance, was a vote for a Labour MP who would form part of a Labour government, led by Ed Miliband as Prime Minister. Everybody got that. Even the branding need not be an issue - everyone in Bavaria knows that a vote for the CSU is a vote for a CDU government led by Merkel, and everyone in Britain in 1959 knew that a vote for the National Liberals or the SUP or the UUP was a vote for a Tory government led by Harold Macmillan.

But that relationship between your vote and the outcome, which, to be perfectly honest, is the most important thing about a modern democratic election, is not there in European elections. It's still not there after decades of the EU (and the EP) accruing more and more power. It's still not there even when they try to make the European institutions look like those of a normal democracy - 2014 was the first time the Europarties nominated their own candidates for President of the European Commission, and they even held debates between them; but next to nobody knew who the candidates were, especially outside their home countries, and even fewer people watched the debates. The turnout is low and keeps getting lower. The problem is inherent, and it won't change, save for the unlikely event (still unlikely, despite the best efforts of the European institutions) that a pan-European identity emerges.

And most importantly, virtually nobody decides their vote based on a preference for a certain Europarty or a certain candidate for President of the Commission - with the exception of Eurosceptics in some countries, almost everyone votes on national politics and national party loyalty. And most mainstream national parties are members of the EPP, S&D, or ALDE, who thus claim 'their' votes as a mandate to push forward their common platform, which unites them to the exclusion of everything else (seriously, they're now in a coalition and in the 2009-14 term voted together over 90% of the time), of further European integration. But as I've said, nobody actually voted for them, few people know who they are and fewer people care, and those few that do care can't even be sure which Europarty their vote will actually end up going towards. So it's a false mandate. If anything, European elections are proof that democracy means more than holding free, fair, and regular elections.

((I really ought to work on condensing this point into something that isn't a wall of text.))

I'll help you: The EU has a democratic deficit, not because the institutions are set up to be undemocratic and exclude people's desires, opinions and input, but because the citizens of Europe don't give a flying fuck about how they work, who they vote for, and what the consequences of their vote might be. The institutions will take democratic input. But the citizens won't give it, because they don't care. Ergo, the EU is undemocratic.

Which is true.

But it is very much not the kind of "undemocratic" that you get from eurosceptics who complain about the democratic deficit. It's not about malevolent bureaucrats in Brussels trying to steal your British freedoms. It's your incompetent arse not using its freedoms to pursue its interests in the political arena, and then moaning about it like a little bitch: "Oh EU bureaucrats wants to make bananas straight! Political correctness gone mad!"

Yeah... fuck that noise. You do not have a valid complaint.

[Vassenor]

The problem isn't the electoral system (or at least, not so much). The problem is what happens in practice. The 'parties' in the European Parliament aren't the ones on our ballot papers. These Europarties can't honestly claim, as parties in national elections do, a mandate to govern or to select the Head of Government if they 'win' the elections, when they're nowhere near anyone's ballot paper. Doubly so when you can't be at all sure which Europarty the party on your ballot paper will actually be a member of when the EP finally reconvenes after the elections - some parties, including the runners-up in Italy and Czech Republic, only decided after the vote; while many others, including the winners in Belgium and Denmark, actively switched allegiance after the vote. Indeed, you couldn't even be sure whether the Europarty you were technically voting for would even exist by the time the EP actually sat (UEN in 2009), or whether it would need quite radical change to continue existing (EFD in 2014), or whether your vote would actually end up being claimed by a 'party' that didn't even exist when you crossed your ballot paper, either when the EP sat (ECR in 2009) or over a year after the vote (ENL in 2014).

You are pretty much grasping at straws here. You elect representatives on specific platforms in your constituency. They then go off and do what they need to do to implement policies from those platforms and will support policies outside of those on their platform to the extent to which they conform to values stated on the platform. They make alliances with like-minded people, rally behind some further representative to elect to executive roles, etc.

That is what happens in every single case of representative democracy ever. There is not a single difference between this and what happens at the national level, except for the fact that there is one extra degree of "representatives of representatives". Which there should be. Because you are talking about representing complex demographics in a population pool of 500 million.

National parties do this because nobody really cares about Europarties. Not that many people even know about them, or about the candidates they put forward in 2014 for President of the Commission. And that is the problem; that is the democratic deficit. In a normal democracy, everybody knows and cares what their vote really means - a vote for Labour in 2015, for instance, was a vote for a Labour MP who would form part of a Labour government, led by Ed Miliband as Prime Minister. Everybody got that. Even the branding need not be an issue - everyone in Bavaria knows that a vote for the CSU is a vote for a CDU government led by Merkel, and everyone in Britain in 1959 knew that a vote for the National Liberals or the SUP or the UUP was a vote for a Tory government led by Harold Macmillan.

But that relationship between your vote and the outcome, which, to be perfectly honest, is the most important thing about a modern democratic election, is not there in European elections. It's still not there after decades of the EU (and the EP) accruing more and more power. It's still not there even when they try to make the European institutions look like those of a normal democracy - 2014 was the first time the Europarties nominated their own candidates for President of the European Commission, and they even held debates between them; but next to nobody knew who the candidates were, especially outside their home countries, and even fewer people watched the debates. The turnout is low and keeps getting lower. The problem is inherent, and it won't change, save for the unlikely event (still unlikely, despite the best efforts of the European institutions) that a pan-European identity emerges.

And most importantly, virtually nobody decides their vote based on a preference for a certain Europarty or a certain candidate for President of the Commission - with the exception of Eurosceptics in some countries, almost everyone votes on national politics and national party loyalty. And most mainstream national parties are members of the EPP, S&D, or ALDE, who thus claim 'their' votes as a mandate to push forward their common platform, which unites them to the exclusion of everything else (seriously, they're now in a coalition and in the 2009-14 term voted together over 90% of the time), of further European integration. But as I've said, nobody actually voted for them, few people know who they are and fewer people care, and those few that do care can't even be sure which Europarty their vote will actually end up going towards. So it's a false mandate. If anything, European elections are proof that democracy means more than holding free, fair, and regular elections.

((I really ought to work on condensing this point into something that isn't a wall of text.))

I'll help you: The EU has a democratic deficit, not because the institutions are set up to be undemocratic and exclude people's desires, opinions and input, but because the citizens of Europe don't give a flying fuck about how they work, who they vote for, and what the consequences of their vote might be. The institutions will take democratic input. But the citizens won't give it, because they don't care. Ergo, the EU is undemocratic.

Which is true.

But it is very much not the kind of "undemocratic" that you get from eurosceptics who complain about the democratic deficit. It's not about malevolent bureaucrats in Brussels trying to steal your British freedoms. It's your incompetent arse not using its freedoms to pursue its interests in the political arena, and then moaning about it like a little bitch: "Oh EU bureaucrats wants to make bananas straight! Political correctness gone mad!"

Yeah... fuck that noise. You do not have a valid complaint.

Especially since a good chunk of our MEPs are UKIP ones acting to try and undermine the whole thing in order to strengthen the case for independence.

[Angleter]

I think what you're describing Angleter may not be something British citizens are familiar with, but will sound much more like business as usual to someone from a European country with proportional representation. Parties will join coalitions, sometimes grand ones, they will switch allegiances and make marriages of convenience and this is what happens with the 'party groups' of the European Parliament. I think where I disagree with you is calling this undemocratic. We operate on a system of representative democracy whereby you cast your vote for a candidate and if they win that person has a mandate to operate on your behalf, which includes their deciding how best to accomplish their goals by working with other groups (or not).

Now, believe me, I wish politics were more straightforward and politicians did more to directly enact the will of their constituents but under a representative system of democracy we do have to have some realism and account for ambition. Maybe though one of the things we could look toward reforming in the European Union is how the rules of the game are played out with regards to such things as how a party in Europarl might switch coalition directly following an election.

This is a step beyond coalitions, though. It's coalitions of coalitions, and even without the many aggravating factors, I'd say that at that point, you've got a system where a small clique of politicians can and do make far, far more difference than the voters - and I'd call that oligarchy or partitocracy, not democracy.

And the fact that the government formation process is unlike that of any normal democracy makes matters worse. I'd be amazed if there has ever been a single national election where a candidate for Head of Government's possible pick for European Commission was a remotely significant issue. I doubt you'd need to use your other hand to count the number of people who've voted based on that issue. Yet they, in a process of horse-trading with the soon-to-be President of the Commission that's as long as it is murky, get to decide that.

I appreciate your point about representative democracy, but the fact is that in practice, European elections do not work like a normal representative democracy. Next to nobody knows or cares which coalition, let alone coalition-of-coalitions, the people they're actually voting for will join. Next to nobody knows or cares who the candidates for Head of Government are. Next to nobody actually votes on these issues, when in normal representative democracies, pretty much everyone votes on them (or has taken a conscious decision to put some other priority ahead of them - they may have voted for an MP they like even though they're a Tory, or voted Labour even though they'll probably need to rely on the SNP, or whatever). The governing grand coalition-of-coalitions has persisted for decades, despite there usually being some possible alternative that would much better suit either the EPP or S&D's ideology, because they're consistently less interested in promoting their own ideologies (which is the basis of their national parties' support, and is therefore the ultimate source of their immovable majority in the EP) than in promoting further European integration. This isn't just a British issue (even if we are less used to coalitions per se). None of this operates like a normal democracy anywhere.

The whole thing is just about within the letter of 'democracy', but it's completely outside the spirit of democracy. It looks like democracy on paper, but it is nowhere near it in practice. And that will persist (for us) until one of the following scenarios happens:

1. A pan-European identity actually takes hold across the entire EU, and forms the basis for a federal EU where people actually vote based on whether they want the EPP or S&D or whoever in power, or a Schulz or Juncker Commission; and the various on-paper democratic deficits (Europarty switching, the way Commissioners are chosen, etc.) are sorted out as a consequence of this new, healthy, pan-European body politic. I don't want this to happen, I don't think most Britons want it to happen, and I don't think it will ever happen, although the EU institutions will try their best to make it happen.

2. The existing European treaties are ripped up and replaced with an EU that does much less and conducts its affairs entirely by diplomacy between its member-states. This is probably even less likely to happen.

3. We leave.

[Ad Nihilo]

The whole thing is just about within the letter of 'democracy', but it's completely outside the spirit of democracy. It looks like democracy on paper, but it is nowhere near it in practice. And that will persist (for us) until one of the following scenarios happens:

1. A pan-European identity actually takes hold across the entire EU, and forms the basis for a federal EU where people actually vote based on whether they want the EPP or S&D or whoever in power, or a Schulz or Juncker Commission; and the various on-paper democratic deficits (Europarty switching, the way Commissioners are chosen, etc.) are sorted out as a consequence of this new, healthy, pan-European body politic. I don't want this to happen, I don't think most Britons want it to happen, and I don't think it will ever happen, although the EU institutions will try their best to make it happen.

2. The existing European treaties are ripped up and replaced with an EU that does much less and conducts its affairs entirely by diplomacy between its member-states. This is probably even less likely to happen.

3. We leave.

Okay, sure. But...

Were you in favour of Scottish independence? Because everything you have said can apply just as well to Scotland, whose body politic would really rather have elections between SNP, Labour and Green governments, and who cannot, for the life of them, understand why they have to be governed by a Conservative government in whom they have no interest, and which does no represent their political culture in any significant way. (I am exaggerating, but the point should stand)

Still... it is true that a democracy requires citizens. And while we are all citizens of European countries, hardly any of us are citizens of Europe. But that's not the fault of EU institutions. And the EU Commission is not conspiring against you to steal your "sovereigntiez". We are giving away sovereignty through ignorance and indolence. So we do not get to complain about democratic deficits.

[Old Stephania]

I appreciate your point about representative democracy, but the fact is that in practice, European elections do not work like a normal representative democracy. Next to nobody knows or cares which coalition, let alone coalition-of-coalitions, the people they're actually voting for will join. Next to nobody knows or cares who the candidates for Head of Government are. Next to nobody actually votes on these issues, when in normal representative democracies, pretty much everyone votes on them (or has taken a conscious decision to put some other priority ahead of them - they may have voted for an MP they like even though they're a Tory, or voted Labour even though they'll probably need to rely on the SNP, or whatever). The governing grand coalition-of-coalitions has persisted for decades, despite there usually being some possible alternative that would much better suit either the EPP or S&D's ideology, because they're consistently less interested in promoting their own ideologies (which is the basis of their national parties' support, and is therefore the ultimate source of their immovable majority in the EP) than in promoting further European integration. This isn't just a British issue (even if we are less used to coalitions per se). None of this operates like a normal democracy anywhere.

I think what you're describing here is essentially what Ad Nihilo described. The public is not engaged or informed enough about European politics and unfortunately they don't seem interested in remedying that situation, at least until they hear the next story in the Mail about how horrid the EU is and how we have to leave immediately then suddenly they become experts.

I'm not talking about all Eurosceptics there, I know a few who understand the EU and after consideration have decided they want to leave, but the general public are clueless.

[Angleter]

The whole thing is just about within the letter of 'democracy', but it's completely outside the spirit of democracy. It looks like democracy on paper, but it is nowhere near it in practice. And that will persist (for us) until one of the following scenarios happens:

1. A pan-European identity actually takes hold across the entire EU, and forms the basis for a federal EU where people actually vote based on whether they want the EPP or S&D or whoever in power, or a Schulz or Juncker Commission; and the various on-paper democratic deficits (Europarty switching, the way Commissioners are chosen, etc.) are sorted out as a consequence of this new, healthy, pan-European body politic. I don't want this to happen, I don't think most Britons want it to happen, and I don't think it will ever happen, although the EU institutions will try their best to make it happen.

2. The existing European treaties are ripped up and replaced with an EU that does much less and conducts its affairs entirely by diplomacy between its member-states. This is probably even less likely to happen.

3. We leave.

Okay, sure. But...

Were you in favour of Scottish independence? Because everything you have said can apply just as well to Scotland, whose body politic would really rather have elections between SNP, Labour and Green governments, and who cannot, for the life of them, understand why they have to be governed by a Conservative government in whom they have no interest, and which does no represent their political culture in any significant way. (I am exaggerating, but the point should stand)

I'd say Scotland is different enough. It is engaged in British elections (even more so now). This is the first election where a separatist party has done so well - right now, it closer resembles Québec in the early 1990s, which turned out to be a transitory weak moment in the Canadian national fibre, than it does the EU, which has been consistently dogged by the same issues for decades, only now they're getting worse and worse (turnout in the toilet, Eurosceptic parties on the up). And what's more, the EU is going the wrong way. It's accruing more and more power, and seems to think that the way to combat Euroscepticism is to continue giving them more of what they're complaining about; while Britain has been devolving more and more power since 1997.

Still... it is true that a democracy requires citizens. And while we are all citizens of European countries, hardly any of us are citizens of Europe. But that's not the fault of EU institutions. And the EU Commission is not conspiring against you to steal your "sovereigntiez". We are giving away sovereignty through ignorance and indolence. So we do not get to complain about democratic deficits.

Sure, it's not the EU institutions' fault that we're not 'citizens of Europe' (although they are trying, and failing). And I'd love every EU voter (especially in Britain) to know about the EPP/S&D/ALDE/G-EFA and its leaders, and to base their vote on that knowledge (alone). But the fact remains that their democratic mandate is hollow, and unless they're spectacularly out of touch in Brussels/Strasbourg, they know that, but are ploughing ahead nonetheless. Even if you accept that they're just exploiting the inaction (or squeamishness about voting FN/PVV/KKE/whatever, or in some countries, sheer lack of Eurosceptic options) of ordinary voters, and therefore technically acting well within their rights, it's still not a good thing.

And in any case, the choices remain the same. Try to bring about the demos nobody wants (or, I suppose, bring about a continent-wide Eurosceptic awakening without bringing about the demos nobody wants), try to drastically reform the treaties, or leave. Only the latter's remotely likely to happen.

[Angleter]

I appreciate your point about representative democracy, but the fact is that in practice, European elections do not work like a normal representative democracy. Next to nobody knows or cares which coalition, let alone coalition-of-coalitions, the people they're actually voting for will join. Next to nobody knows or cares who the candidates for Head of Government are. Next to nobody actually votes on these issues, when in normal representative democracies, pretty much everyone votes on them (or has taken a conscious decision to put some other priority ahead of them - they may have voted for an MP they like even though they're a Tory, or voted Labour even though they'll probably need to rely on the SNP, or whatever). The governing grand coalition-of-coalitions has persisted for decades, despite there usually being some possible alternative that would much better suit either the EPP or S&D's ideology, because they're consistently less interested in promoting their own ideologies (which is the basis of their national parties' support, and is therefore the ultimate source of their immovable majority in the EP) than in promoting further European integration. This isn't just a British issue (even if we are less used to coalitions per se). None of this operates like a normal democracy anywhere.

I think what you're describing here is essentially what Ad Nihilo described. The public is not engaged or informed enough about European politics and unfortunately they don't seem interested in remedying that situation, at least until they hear the next story in the Mail about how horrid the EU is and how we have to leave immediately then suddenly they become experts.

I'm not talking about all Eurosceptics there, I know a few who understand the EU and after consideration have decided they want to leave, but the general public are clueless.

Except I'm talking about people whose vision of the EU doesn't align with that of the leaders of the European institutions (which is, essentially, 'the status quo, but with even more integration'), and then in European elections vote for, say, Labour or CDU or PSOE, or any affiliate to the Europarties that are in practice wholly committed to realising that vision.

[Old Stephania]

Sure, it's not the EU institutions' fault that we're not 'citizens of Europe' (although they are trying, and failing). And I'd love every EU voter (especially in Britain) to know about the EPP/S&D/ALDE/G-EFA and its leaders, and to base their vote on that knowledge (alone). But the fact remains that their democratic mandate is hollow, and unless they're spectacularly out of touch in Brussels/Strasbourg, they know that, but are ploughing ahead nonetheless. Even if you accept that they're just exploiting the inaction (or squeamishness about voting FN/PVV/KKE/whatever, or in some countries, sheer lack of Eurosceptic options) of ordinary voters, and therefore technically acting well within their rights, it's still not a good thing.

What I think is most telling is that if you replace the names of places and political parties with domestic ones you could be talking about the situation here. Let me try it out of curiosity:

Sure, it's not the government's fault that we're not 'citizens of Britain' (although they are trying, and failing). And I'd love every British voter to know about the mainstream parties and their leaders, and to base their vote on that knowledge (alone). But the fact remains that their democratic mandate is hollow, and unless they're spectacularly out of touch in Westminster, they know that, but are ploughing ahead nonetheless. Even if you accept that they're just exploiting the inaction (or squeamishness about voting smaller parties, or in some constituencies, sheer lack of non-establishment options) of ordinary voters, and therefore technically acting well within their rights, it's still not a good thing.

I hate to say it, but it sounds exactly like I am on to something. There is a lowest common denominator to all of this.