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

[-:Undertaker:-]

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.

[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.

[FlyingJesus]

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

[Inseriousity.]

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."

[Ardemax]

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

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

[dbgtz]

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

[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

It should be pointed out the HoL can be bypassed

[GommeInc]

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.

[The Don]

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.

[GommeInc]

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 The Commission is always getting in to trouble. It will be interesting if it's still around after 2020.