Britons 'too ignorant' for an EU referendum says unelected Vice-President of EU

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-decision.html

Britons 'too ignorant' for EU referendum: Top official says debate on Europe is so distorted that people could not make an 'informed decision'

- Viviane Reding, vice-president of European Commission, made comments
- Speaking in London, she said British people must know 'the facts' on EU
- She boasted about how 70 per cent of UK's laws are now made in Brussels
- Her comments were attacked by critics for 'dangerous' assumptions

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daily Mail

Britons are too ignorant about Europe to vote in a referendum on the subject, a top Brussels official claimed last night.

Viviane Reding, vice-president of the European Commission, said the British debate about Europe was so ‘distorted’ that people could not make an ‘informed decision’ about whether or not to stay in the EU.

Mrs Reding - who boasted that 70 per cent of the UK’s laws are now made in Brussels - also rubbished David Cameron’s bid to curb immigration from Europe, saying it was incompatible with membership of the EU.

---

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/...97_634x500.jpg
'Dangerous': Viviane Reding was criticised for making assumptions about what qualifies Britons to cast a vote on EU membership

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daily Mail

Speaking at an EU-sponsored ‘Citizen’s Dialogue’ event in London, Mrs Reding accused British politicians and media of so misrepresenting the EU that it is now impossible to hold a fair referendum on Britain’s membership of the EU.

‘You are on the verge of having (to take) maybe a national decision?’ she said.‘Do the people who are asked to vote know what they are going to vote about?’

‘The fact is that very often, I see a completely distorted truth being presented and then how do you want people to take an informed decision? They simply cannot.’

Europe Minister David Lidington criticised her comments, saying that pro-EU points of view received a wide airing in the UK, including on the BBC.

He added: ‘It is very dangerous to start making assumptions about what makes someone qualified to cast a vote.’

Pawel Sidlicki, of the think tank Open Europe, said: ‘Mrs Reding epitomises the EU elites’ approach to dealing with the public -superficially embracing debate with citizens while dismissing any substantive criticism.

'Having their legitimate concerns dismissed in such a high-handed manner only drives people towards populist, anti-EU parties. Sadly, EU politicians like Reding often do a better job at driving voters towards these parties than they do themselves.’

But Mrs Reding said the British public needed to be made more aware of the ‘facts’ about Europe.

---

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/...41_306x423.jpg
'Legitimate concerns': Mrs Reading was attacked for dismissing people's concerns, which could lead them to support pro-independence parties such as UKIP, led by Nigel Farage (pictured)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daily Mail

She said the European Parliament was now ‘the most powerful parliament in Europe’, because of its role in signing off new EU laws proposed by the European Commission.

‘Seventy per cent of the laws in this country are co-decided by the European Parliament,’ she said. ‘So it’s not neutral who you sent to the European Parliament.’

Mrs Reding also suggested Britain would have to leave the EU if Mr Cameron pursues his bid to cap immigration from Europe.

She said it was ‘not possible’ to curb free movement of people while retaining free movement of goods, services and capital.

---

Here again those 'loons' in UKIP and some Tories and Labourites are confirmed as correct again when they say that around 70% of our laws are now made by the EU. A thumbs up for another confirmation of this. Anyway, are we surprised by this? She represents the same organisation that only a few years ago ignored the results of the French, Dutch and Irish referendums - and made the Irish vote twice to come up with the 'correct' (pro-EU) result. It's no surprise that the former President of the USSR, Gorbachev, compared the EU to the USSR.

The outline to this debate is quite clear, as it the attitude of the EU and the Commission. Do you want these arrogant elitests to build a new country without your consent, or do you want your country to be free and independent? Talk about a way to keep digging though - she's the same one who called for a United States of Europe just before Christmas. And just before the European elections too to prove everything i've been saying on this topic over the past few years as correct, I do hope they keep it up. :P

Britons 'too ignorant' though? Maybe it's the EU which is 'too arrogant'.

Thoughts?

Leaving the EU wouldn't really change much. There was an in-depth article published by someone within the EU who stated that:

i) The UK would have so many deals chucked at it because of how much we import from EU nations
ii) The EU would have to fork out more to bridge the gap of funding lost and yet the UK will make gains (though not that many, as it would be re-diverted into new deals with the zone
iii) The EU and UK would probably share laws as they've done for years, though it wouldn't be binding. That said, the UK copies the US and Australia on their court decisions and laws. Precedent and persuasive precedent are wonderful things.

Can't for the life of me find where the article was published. I'm certain it wasn't one of the law journals I read a few weeks ago. It may have turned up on reddit and was diverted towards an article on europa.eu or some other EU owned domain.


Also, she's a berk. Someone shut her up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GommeInc

Leaving the EU wouldn't really change much. There was an in-depth article published by someone within the EU who stated that:

i) The UK would have so many deals chucked at it because of how much we import from EU nations
ii) The EU would have to fork out more to bridge the gap of funding lost and yet the UK will make gains (though not that many, as it would be re-diverted into new deals with the zone
iii) The EU and UK would probably share laws as they've done for years, though it wouldn't be binding. That said, the UK copies the US and Australia on their court decisions and laws. Precedent and persuasive precedent are wonderful things.

Can't for the life of me find where the article was published. I'm certain it wasn't one of the law journals I read a few weeks ago. It may have turned up on reddit and was diverted towards an article on europa.eu or some other EU owned domain.


Also, she's a berk. Someone shut her up.

---

Leaving the EU will only change anything if we have political parties that have some real difference between them in the future, ie one party supports mass immigration and the other does not. Today in the EU, it wouldn't matter even if we had a main party opposed to mass immigration but which supported our EU membership as EU law would tie the hands of the government. The same for prisoners voters and the ECHR with Human Rights, agricultural policy, river policy which was meddled in by the EU and caused these recent floods, fisheries policy, energy policy (we are required by the EU to have 20% renewable energy by 2020 - a HUGE requirement and change in our energy, our world trade policy - with EU membership we do not have a seat on the World Trade Organisation despite being the 7th largest economy....

There's so much we can change and have proper debates over once we have left the European Union, but just leaving the EU isn't an automatic guarantee that anything will change. Once out of the EU, we will need a return to adversial politics with two opposing political parties that are both dogmatic whereas at the moment we only have one (Labour) that is dogmatic hence why it dominates the entire political history since WWII. That's why I advocate on here over and over the need for the destruction of the useless Conservative Party which stands in the way of the creation of a real conservative movement.

For a return to real politics as well as a chance of getting out of the EU, the Tory Party must be bulldozed out of the way. Ukip is the battering ram.

The model to achieve this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadia...election,_1993

Dunno why you've put unelected in the title when she was voted for by representatives... should i put UNELECTED Queen when I make a post about her? What about the house of lords ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Don

Dunno why you've put unelected in the title when she was voted for by representatives... should i put UNELECTED Queen when I make a post about her? What about the house of lords ?

---

I don't deny that the Queen or House of Lords are unelected. The difference - which we're now going through again for about the third or fourth time - is that the European Commission actively enact/push for legislation whereas Her Majesty and the noble Lords do not. If the Queen or the House of Lords had a strong role in pushing forward legislaton like the Commission, then you'd have a point. But they don't - so you don't have a point.

And that's without mentioning the fact that the European Commission is foreign whereas the Monarchy/House of Lords is not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

I don't deny that the Queen or House of Lords are unelected. The difference - which we're now going through again for about the third or fourth time - is that the European Commission actively enact/push for legislation whereas Her Majesty and the noble Lords do not.

And that's without mentioning the fact that the European Commission is foreign whereas the Monarchy/House of Lords is not.

---

But you've put unelected in the title to try and put it in a negative light and gauge a reaction when that's clearly not your problem with it since you're quite alright with all those other undemocratic things, and again, the commission aren't unelected as you're trying to make out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Don

But you've put unelected in the title to try and put it in a negative light and gauge a reaction when that's clearly not your problem with it since you're quite alright with all those other undemocratic things, and again, the commission aren't unelected as you're trying to make out.

---

I have a problem with unelected (and foreign) bodies which exercise control over huge swathes of legislation which effect this country. I am alright with unelected bodies when they do not exercise such control over legislation. Do you understand?

And the Commission is unelected. Did the public go and vote for the Barroso Commission like they did the Cameron Ministry? They did not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

I have a problem with unelected (and foreign) bodies which exercise control over huge swathes of legislation which effect this country. I am alright with unelected bodies when they do not exercise such control over legislation. Do you understand?

And the Commission is unelected. Did the public go and vote for the Barroso Commission like they did the Cameron Ministry? They did not.

---

Representative democracy.

And if you don't think the house of lords have any power then you're deluded, and it's not as if the queen doesn't influence things...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Don

Representative democracy.

---

So why not just elect Local Councils and have them elect the National British Government on our behalf? 'Democracy' Soviet/Chinese style. The European Union and the Commission are actively undemocratic in that the body which proposes legislation (the European Commission) is not elected and is appointed - unlike parliamentary democracy whereby the Government is elected by the people and is formed from the elected chamber.

A fundamental difference which allows the Government to be held to account but which you seemingly don't care about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Don

And if you don't think the house of lords have any power then you're deluded, and it's not as if the queen doesn't influence things...

---

The House of Lords doesn't have the power to propose or even block for that matter any meaningful legislation. The House of Lords serves (at the very most) as a revising chamber which, in rare circumstances, it will sometimes send legislation back to the House of Commons for a period of a few months for minor changes to flaws in policy etc. The same with the Queen who can only advise her ministers and cannot constitutionally propose legislation herself.

It's pretty simple to comprehend the difference between the Monarchy/House of Lords and the European Commission.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

It's pretty simple to comprehend the difference between the Monarchy/House of Lords and the European Commission.

---

Yeh, one's elected by representatives and the other we have no control over whatsoever, but of course, because it's tradition and not the EU that's alrighty then, right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Don

Yeh, one's elected by representatives and the other we have no control over whatsoever, but of course, because it's tradition and not the EU that's alrighty then, right?

---

I'm sorry but if you can't grasp the difference between a 'representative democracy' and a parliamentary democracy then I really can't do much more for you. I can't do much more for you either if you keep insisting that the two unelected organs of state (the Monarchy and House of Lords) which do not propose or enact legislation are the same as an unelected organ of state (foreign) that does enact and propose legislation.

If the Monarchy or House of Lords enacted or proposed meaningful legislation in a way that the House of Commons does, then I would be with you in calling for them to become elected institutions - but they are not. Thus your comparison between them & the Commission is non sequitur my friend.

Just actually read the article, where does she say britons are 'too ignorant' which is repeated numerously. I actually agree with most of what she said, the average joe is probably uninformed about all the pros and cons of Europe integration.

Yeah she doesn't ever say the word ignorant so that really shouldn't be in quotations

She's not entirely wrong, if there was a referendum I'd want to hear both sides of the argument that's a lot more nuanced and sophisicated than "stay or we're moving our business elsewhere."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Don

Just actually read the article, where does she say britons are 'too ignorant' which is repeated numerously. I actually agree with most of what she said, the average joe is probably uninformed about all the pros and cons of Europe integration.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlyingJesus

Yeah she doesn't ever say the word ignorant so that really shouldn't be in quotations

---

You're not telling me that the Daily Mail would simply make something like this up?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Don

Representative democracy.

And if you don't think the house of lords have any power then you're deluded, and it's not as if the queen doesn't influence things...

---

It should be pointed out the HoL can be bypassed

I'm aware, I was more arguing the fact that if he thinks some undemocratic things are good then it's hypocritical to be using that as a reason against something

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dbgtz

It should be pointed out the HoL can be bypassed

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Don

I'm aware, I was more arguing the fact that if he thinks some undemocratic things are good then it's hypocritical to be using that as a reason against something

---

Nation's best interest argument applies. The House of Lords has its own regulations and way of acting and they do so in the interests of the United Kingdom. The EU Commission, on the other hand, is only interested in economic policies not for the individual nation states, but the entire organisation in general, which usually involves bettering the rich than the poor. The EU is doing a good job at widening the gap between the rich and the poor, while the HoL are actually pretty good at protecting the fundamental rights of the poor. Unelected doesn't de facto mean bad - we owe the HoL a lot, from suppressing the ignorant elected politicians from passing dangerous laws like the Digital Economy Bill to untangling the difficulties with the outdated Human Rights Act which is more interested in 1950s (post-WWII) society than the future - the House of Lords acknowledge that modern day terrorism is incredibly different to whatever you want to call the type of warfare used in both World Wars, but that's slowly mixing the ECHR and the EU when both are separate institutions.

The Commission is just their for economic reasons, the HoL consider every aspect and have been grown up or taught about these things - rather than failed at being politicians like many of the Commission and somehow slept/bribed their way into politics with very little education or indeed interests in the "common" people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GommeInc

Unelected doesn't de facto mean bad

---

Which is my entire argument here about dans use of it. I'm not debating the differences between the two as I've previously said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Don

Which is my entire argument here about dans use of it. I'm not debating the differences between the two as I've previously said.

---

Indeed, but there's different types and whether or not they have any use. The Commission is a terrible waste of resources that's haemorrhaging funds all the time. The Lords has an actual use as it is just an upper chamber. The Commission isn't that useful and could instead be replaced with a smaller model and be fully accountable to each individual member state. In it's current form, it's the lower end of the "good unelected spectrum", since hardly any of the Commissioners turn up as even they know it's a waste of time being there. They're meddling in important national affairs, without really knowing what they're doing or what is wrong (where the HoL has an advantage and the Commission not so much). It's like hiring someone with no educational background to be the Education Minister, for example :P The Commission is always getting in to trouble. It will be interesting if it's still around after 2020.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GommeInc

Indeed, but there's different types and whether or not they have any use. The Commission is a terrible waste of resources that's haemorrhaging funds all the time. The Lords has an actual use as it is just an upper chamber. The Commission isn't that useful and could instead be replaced with a smaller model and be fully accountable to each individual member state. In it's current form, it's the lower end of the "good unelected spectrum", since hardly any of the Commissioners turn up as even they know it's a waste of time being there. They're meddling in important national affairs, without really knowing what they're doing or what is wrong (where the HoL has an advantage and the Commission not so much). It's like hiring someone with no educational background to be the Education Minister, for example :P The Commission is always getting in to trouble. It will be interesting if it's still around after 2020.

---

Of course, but my point is that chucking unelected in the heading for dramatic effect is a cheap trick, especially when you and dan both acknowledge that not all unelected things are necessarily bad. There are certainly things wrong with the commission which I would like to see changed, I don't think scrapping it would be wise but there definitely needs to be some sort of reformation with either the commission being elected directly by the people or more power being given to european parliament.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Don

Of course, but my point is that chucking unelected in the heading for dramatic effect is a cheap trick, especially when you and dan both acknowledge that not all unelected things are necessarily bad. There are certainly things wrong with the commission which I would like to see changed, I don't think scrapping it would be wise but there definitely needs to be some sort of reformation with either the commission being elected directly by the people or more power being given to european parliament.

---

And how will that solve anything? Europe lacks a demos aka a people as a whole and thus cannot function ever as a democracy just as Northern Ireland fails to function properly as a democracy. Electing the Commission or the parliament doesn't make them anymore legitimate which is a reason why Mrs Thatcher famously refused to call it a parliament and instead referred to it as an assembly. It can never be a real parliament.

And secondly, that's all just a pipe dream. The EU is purposely designed as so to avoid democratic decisions by the people hence why those behind European integration have never come out fully in the open about their real intentions which is a federal or united European state. To simple say that we need to reform the EU is exactly the same thing that the useless Tories have been saying since the day they took us in over forty years ago. That's not realistic and it ain't gonna happen. Why? Because the moment European integration comes up against the ballot box it will stall and fail which is why they're so keen on ignoring or avoiding referendums/democracy altogether.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Don

Of course, but my point is that chucking unelected in the heading for dramatic effect is a cheap trick, especially when you and dan both acknowledge that not all unelected things are necessarily bad. There are certainly things wrong with the commission which I would like to see changed, I don't think scrapping it would be wise but there definitely needs to be some sort of reformation with either the commission being elected directly by the people or more power being given to european parliament.

---

Do you know I hadn't noticed the unelected bit :P I just ignore these things as it's just window dressing - I go straight for the real info behind it :P Probably why I hadn't noticed and didn't quite understand what you were talking about.

There wouldn't be much point electing them directly as member states have enough problems making their own elected officials accountable, but then as you suggest, if they could vote for a single member or somehow streamline it so it isn't a complete waste of money and also only focus on those who are not failed politicians it would be a better organisation. That, and that it shouldn't be about making a United States of Europe set up which is in the EU Treaties. Personally I think they shouldn't have any more power - the EEC was a much better set up and wasn't haemorrhaging funds or trying to do away with individual cultures and essentially making the countries seem thick and incapable of setting their own laws, despite these countries having operated for centuries and doing quite well by themselves. It should be about collaboration, not incorporation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

The House of Lords doesn't have the power to propose or even block for that matter any meaningful legislation.

---

Like a bill proposing we have a referendum on leaving the EU? Oh wait, they did block it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chippiewill

Like a bill proposing we have a referendum on leaving the EU? Oh wait, they did block it.

---

The bill for a referendum in 2017 isn't serious - it's just a gimmick to 'shoot the Ukip fox' as they say. Besides, all the Lords did was impede it - if we had a proper opposition party that opposed our EU membership for example, it would have introduced the bill back in 2010 after being elected rather than having to have been dragged kicking and screaming to introducing this pathetic excuse for a referendum bill in 2017. The only reason the Tory leadership have caved in and decided to offer a refernedum (provided they get a majority - HA!) is because Tory MPs sitting in marginals are worried that their jobs are under threat by a growing Ukip vote.

If you really believe the Tories are going to offer a referendum then that's your call. I prefer to look at their record. The Lords has nothing to do with us not getting a referendum or a say on Europe, it's 40 years of Labour, Liberal and Tory two faced lies that are to blame and are still to blame. And besides, the Lords has only become more political since the removal of the bulk of hereditry peers and their replacement by the likes of Lords Prescott and Mandelson - that's not something I support.

It really wouldn't surprise me actually if the Tory leadership were happy/egged on Labour and Liberal peers to block the bill. Really wouldn't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

The bill for a referendum in 2017 isn't serious - it's just a gimmick to 'shoot the Ukip fox' as they say.

---

Rand Paul's lawsuit against Obama is just a gimmick, his stand-up filibuster was just a gimmick. Farage's membership to EU Parliament is just a gimmick. Heck UKIP is just a gimmick.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chippiewill

Rand Paul's lawsuit against Obama is just a gimmick, his stand-up filibuster was just a gimmick. Farage's membership to EU Parliament is just a gimmick. Heck UKIP is just a gimmick.

---

Gimmicks to achieve something. The Tories gimmick is to hold up the pretence that they're eurosceptic in the slightest.

As I said, I don't buy it.