[tankenmate]

You could also say that directly elected members go against the electorate due to party influence like the party whip system in the UK. Look at Brexit, it has caused economic harm to the UK, and this has caused support for it to drop; but MPs are not looking to change tack and "make the best of Brexit" (as polls suggest the populace wants), they're doubling down to make it worse.

"Democracy is the worst form of government - except for all the others that have been tried". I would suggest the same holds for most of the variations, no system will keep all the people happy (or be perfect).

Personally I am prefer the grander bargains of democracy; transparency (vs back room deals), rule of law (vs corruption), and accountability (vs protection by / for the party). I also would prefer rationality over tribalism, but I suspect that might be too much to ask of humanity.

[native_samples]

In the UK people vote for parties and not individuals almost all of the time, so the whip system is there to ensure people get what they actually voted for. A good example of where this disastrously failed is just after Brexit where a lot of MPs campaigned on a platform of respecting the vote, then did a 180 degree turn and refused to do so once in power. They all lost the whip and were kicked out of the party but then refused to call by-elections to let the voters re-decide. Eventually, Boris was able to call an election and every single one of those MPs lost their seats.

"Look at Brexit, it has caused economic harm to the UK, and this has caused support for it to drop"

Economic harm?! The impact of Brexit, if any exists at all, is unmeasurable because it's lost in the noise compared to lockdowns and trying to fight COVID.

What we can say for sure is that the people who claimed voting to leave would trigger an immediate recession were wrong. The economy grew in the years after the vote. Actual implementation was largely put on hold just months after leaving due to COVID and little has changed since.

[tankenmate]

So on the one hand you lament that EU commissioners are voted in by party blocs in the EU parliament. And yet on the other hand you say that people vote for parties in the UK (they don't they vote for MPs, regardless of their party affiliation is written on the ballot), and that this is good.

My point is that both systems are fallible and susceptible to both group influence (think peer pressure or the less charitable group think) and the influence of special interests; both good and bad.

As to economic harm, it is measurable and has been measured; even the Bank of England says that the UK will suffer more than other G7 and EU nations due to the current supply side inflation. The World Bank, the IMF, and many maket research firms have said very similar things based on economic data (FDI, trade flows, GDP, etc). If you want to eat a jam doughnut with extra cream and sprinkles, great, own it. Just don't be surprised if someone mentions that it isn't as good for you as a stick of celery. Sticking your fingers in your ears so that you don't need to listen to people telling you otherwise doesn't mean a doughnut is a stick of celery.

[makomk]

EU commissioners are not, in fact, voted in by party blocs in the EU parliament - they're picked by the President of the EU, who is selected by an opaque and dubious process behind closed doors. The description of it in the comment chain you're replying to is about right. In fact the winning party bloc in the EU parliament backed someone completely different as President and kinda ran for office on that basis but that didn't matter and van der Leyen got the job despite not being the chosen candidate of any party bloc, with the parliament merely reduced to rubber-stamping that decision.

People get confused about this because her predecessor Juncker supposedly got the job for this reason; in reality this was a ploy by well-connected EU insiders to make Juncker specifically President, and this rule has not been applied previously or since and likely wouldn't have been if some other party bloc backing some other candidate won instead.

[native_samples]

You originally claimed "Look at Brexit, it has caused economic harm". A direct causal assertion. Now you've switched to "various organizations claim it will cause harm" which is a very different thing.

"you lament that EU commissioners are voted in by party blocs in the EU parliament"

Where did I say that? I said the opposite, right? That in theory they are appointed directly by national governments without EU parliament or Commission involvement (in theory, but apparently not in practice). EU Parliament can only fire the entire Commission at once, it doesn't select Commissioners and never has.

"you say that people vote for parties in the UK (they don't they vote for MPs, regardless of their party affiliation is written on the ballot), and that this is good"

No, because I didn't express any view on whether it's good or not, I described how the system works. Why do you keep putting words in my mouth like that?

"even the Bank of England says that the UK will suffer more than other G7 and EU nations due to the current supply side inflation"

Bank of England, IMF etc said a lot of stuff that turned out to be flat wrong about Brexit in the past. None of these institutions has any credibility. Every single one wanted Brexit not to happen for ideological reasons and created "expert" forecasts on that basis. A former BoE chief even said the entire profession of economics was in crisis, their prediction misses were so bad, and he's right.

At any rate, the more important point is that, again, trying to tease apart inflation due to fighting COVID from inflation due to Brexit is now hopeless. I'm not happy about that. I feel like COVID was a massive distraction and has largely prevented the government capitalizing on Brexit, and it also means we'll never be able to resolve this economic impact debate. The cost of lockdowns, mass testing, travel restrictions etc is so massive that Brexit is a mosquito in comparison.

"Sticking your fingers in your ears so that you don't need to listen to people telling you otherwise doesn't mean a doughnut is a stick of celery"

The people in question aren't neutral bystanders, they very much want certain outcomes (for ideological reasons). Brexit is neither a donut nor celery, it's merely a continuation of the long term trend towards decentralized governance - look at a graph of how many countries exist over time to see this. In such a way it can work out better or worse depending very much on your perspective and values.