[dmitriid]

> which clearly need improving.

Indeed, they do. So you really have no right to point fingers at "non-democratic EU bureaucracy" when at worst it's the same system as in the UK.

> The EU failed to make a case for the importance of its democratic process

You realise that the UK was in the EU? That it was one of its founding members? That the perceived failure to do anything about this process is shared by the UK as well?

[gizajob]

The UK wasn't a founding member of the EU, but I see your point. Regardless of the UK's role, I feel that many in the UK regard it's parliament as the highest authority in law- and decision-making. Any body resting higher than that is going to face difficulty when attempting to claim greater and greater control over laws, and running them from "far away" even if that far away place was Brussels. The UK also wasn't part of the Euro, and so one of the main benefits of EU membership and coherence was missing. There was also a general feeling amongst the working classes that the low-wage sector was being undermined by labour coming in freely from abroad, mainly eastern Europe, and this wasn't reciprocal, i.e. they couldn't go to eastern Europe, or basically anywhere else in Europe, and get the same benefit from doing so.

P.s. a broken and undemocratic or unrepresentative bureaucracy is not going to be solved or fixed by adding higher levels of beuraucracy.

[dmitriid]

> The UK wasn't a founding member of the EU

Ah, my mistake. I was pretty sure the UK was a founding member.

> I feel that many in the UK regard it's parliament as the highest authority in law- and decision-making. Any body resting higher than that is going to face difficulty when attempting to claim greater and greater control over laws, and running them from "far away" even if that far away place was Brussels.

That is basically the failure of UK politicians, too. But, as Yes, Minister very rightly put it, perhaps the UK wasn't in there for any kind of unity to begin with: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZVYqB0uTKlE :)

> The UK also wasn't part of the Euro, and so one of the main benefits of EU membership and coherence was missing

The UK isn't the only country without the Euro though.

> amongst the working classes that the low-wage sector was being undermined by labour coming in freely from abroad, mainly eastern Europe, and this wasn't reciprocal, i.e. they couldn't go to eastern Europe, or basically anywhere else in Europe, and get the same benefit from doing so.

"They took our jobs" is also a failure of the politicians. Though, for them it's not a failure, it's votes for the next election.

---

In the end, "the EU wants us to be subservient to undemocratic bureaucracy" ends up being "there was a general feeling perpetuated and encouraged by our own politicians and that doesn't really have much to do with reality" ;)

[gizajob]

I feel you're misreading what I said, and just seeing your own angle in it.

"They took our jobs" isn't exactly true, but what has happened is that wages stayed low and conditions got worse due to capitalism's demand for lower costs and greater efficiency. So a source of cheap labour from Eastern Europe only served that process and made it such that companies didn't have to invest in people locally, because anyone could come in and do the job, and in the case of people from Eastern Europe, our minimum wages were higher than those provided by skilled professions. (I worked with a guy whose mother was the head nurse of a hospital in Hungary, and on a wage of £400 per month, so he was earning a small fortune in comparison even though that came at the cost of working to hours and conditions that UK workers would reject). So levelling all the blame for this phenomenon at UK politicians is moot because there is really little they could do about it, the EU comes with complete freedom of movement, which many in the UK saw as not really providing them with any benefit while coming with big downsides that affect them on a daily basis.

> That is basically the failure of UK politicians, too. But, as Yes, Minister very rightly put it, perhaps the UK wasn't in there for any kind of unity to begin with: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZVYqB0uTKlE

I'm well aware of Yes, Minister. While it gives a humourous take on the eccentricity and backwardness of our process, my point nevertheless stands. The UK has long-since developed a system where we defer our individual sovereign rights into the figurehead of our monarch, through which we act collectively, controlled by parliament and the house of Lords. While this corrupt pyramid scheme is deeply flawed, it's nevertheless the one we've got and has developed a consensus in law lasting 1000+ years, and adding novel supranational layers above this was fraught with difficulty, even if they were just perceptual and conceptual difficulties.

[mike_hearn]

It's not the same system. In the EU the executive dominates the legislature because only the executive can initiate the process of changing the law. The executive in turn is controlled by one person who is not selected via any democratic process or in fact any documented process at all (nobody really knows why vDL was selected as current EU Commission head).

That's why when you read about EU law changes you so often read about negotiations between the Parliament and Commission. In the UK the executive branch implements the will of the legislative branch. In the EU the Parliament is often found implementing the will of the executive. Technically it's not a Parliament at all, due to this lack of the "right of initiation".