Comments by "Luredreier" (@Luredreier) on "Bringing Britain Back into Europe: Macron's Europe 2.0 Plan - TLDR News" video.
-
114
-
@haidouk872 The problem with democracy is that once you try to govern too many people et once using the system you loose the benefit of most peoples experiences being somewhat represented by the political elite, of the country being governed by people who knows how it is to live the various lives that the citizens live.
I do not believe that a system where a majority makes decisions is a good democratic system et all.
You end up with cities holding all the power.
Yet it's also wrong to have low population areas making decisions that affects city dwellers too much without their say etc, so a senate like system or a veto based system is also flawed.
The only way to maintain a well functioning democracy (and I do not consider the US, UK, France, Australia, Russia, India or any other large "democracy" a "well functioning" democracy.
Indeed Canada is deeply flawed too, and only New Zealand is a anglophone country with a decent electoral system and a low enough population to have a more or less well functioning democracy.
The EU is far to big to ever have a well functioning democracy and should remain a supernational organization only without the power to enforce laws on member states without their consent or ability to modify.
As a result I believe that legally binding EU regulations should be abolished and replaced with directives only, and that if EU regulations is to be kept then member states should have the right to veto, remove or modify them at will.
Power should ultimately come from the bottom up, not the top down.
Because only at the bottom layer is real democracy even possible.
And once the population reaches 5 million people you're already approaching (if not exceeding) the limit of what can be a well functioning democracy.
Expecting someone from the Ruhr valley and voted in by their voters to know anything about the life in a small Norwegian fishing village or a Swiss mountain village unreasonable, and if they're given power over said areas they will make decisions harmful to those communities.
Likewise it's unreasonable for tiny villages of less then 1 000 people to make decisions about a valley with a population larger then the whole country of Norway, where business needs and lifestyles differ greatly from ours.
In both cases the best solution is independent decision making where anything affecting both communities should be mutually agreed upon.
And it should probably be a compromise solution neither side entirely likes but both can live with.
I do think that the EU has had a positive effect on Europe, helping us avoid any major wars since its formation.
But it shouldn't have legeslative powers that member states can't overrule, except possibly when it comes to enforcing a minimum level of democracy and rule of law in member states if democratic backsliding goes to far like in Poland and Hungary.
I might not like the homophobic laws of Poland, but it's not our place to force our laws and values on them.
So unless they start jailing or executing people for who they are (as opposed to their behaviour) we should not interfere.
The same applies to abortion, and anything else.
Especially if we keep the passport union.
As it would allow anyone who can't live with the current living conditions (most likely including me if I had to live in a Poland with such a conservative government) to leave the country with relative ease.
They have to work out the right course of action themselves instead of having it forced upon them externally.
1