But noooo, the most pressing issue seems to be whether Neelie Smit Kroes get to keep her EUnion commissariat. She, by the way, recently repeated the lie (or a very selective reading of the truth, if you prefer that post-modernist euphemism) that 'the EU does not have more civil servants than a medium-sized Dutch town'. We've dealt with that claim before here.
Some lip-service is paid to the 'democratic deficit' of the EUnion, somehow suggesting that the fraction of zero is something other, something more, then zero. For a deficit to exist there must be a democracy that is deficient. And deficient or not, democracy is not what the EUnion is or does. Period.
In two complementary posts, EU Referendum deals with the notion of 'democratic deficit'. The first post is in reaction to some airheaded pontification of a left-wing columnist I've never heard of. When this particular airhead suggests taht the only way to remedy the 'deficit' is to go out and vote, Mr. North answers by putting the finger on the sore spot that is 'democracy' in the halls of Brussels:
Of course, some "citizens" sent the union a message, in the French, Dutch and Irish referendums. And a fat lot of good that did. Sending a bunch of low-grade nonentities to join the gravy train in Brussels delivers precisely what message?The second post is a report on a debate held in the UK, with the title "Westminster or Brussels: Who rules Britain?". To mainland European eyes it is something of a wonder that such debates would actually be held. I mean, why can't we have a debate in De Rode Hoed in Amsterdam around the title "The Hague or Brussels: Who actually rules the Netherlands?".
Of course, as Mr. North also points out, the question is readily answered. The Hague as the administrative centre of the Netherlands has been rendered to nothing more then a collection of gophers for the EUnion, receiving instruction from Brussels and the duty (by EU treaties) to execute them.
So the debate spun out around the real question of the evening. And I dare say it is a question we all (we bland huddled citizens of the EUnion) should contemplate thoroughly in the coming years.
The real question was whether this was something to be approved of, deeply disliked or sort of approved of, if serious reforms are introduced.This is a serious question, going to the heart of our own commitment to freedom and democracy, since
without anyone noticing it, our parliamentary system has been destroyed with power handed over to other institutions that neither the parliamentarians nor the people of this country can control, through treaties and ECJ decisions.This is the fundamental question. Whether or not we still have anything to say about the direction of our own country has already been answered for us. No we don't. The question now is: Do we approve of being sold out to an undemocratic, potentially tyrannical (1) regime that is accountable to no-one? And if not, what are we going to do?
Anyway, if you want to read more about the nature of the 'democratic deficit' I highly recommend the two links given above. Read it all, as they say.
(1) And that potential is very real. With no checks and balances whatsoever built into the system, corruption is already well-established with the EUnion. Now we just have to wait for some-one to use that for his own particular power play. And if Friedrich Hayek is to be believed (and I don't see why one should not believe him) it is just a matter of time. Such is human nature, alas.