The EU lacks democratic legitimacy for sure, but I think the question is why is that? Is it because it is not there; or because people simply don’t know how it works. My understanding from my studies of the EU is that two of the three decision making institutions are made up of elected officials. The European Parliament is directly elected by EU citizens (albeit by the very small few who actually go out and vote) and the Council (including the European Council) are elected ministers (or heads of state) within their respective member state. The Commission is the only body that is appointed and the EP is responsible for appointing the head of the Commission. The head of the Commission then appoints individual Commissioners but the EP can veto any proposed appointment (they’ve done it). The legislative agenda is produced by the Commission, but all draft legislation runs through and is passed by EP and the Council (acting as the two houses, if you will) and they can make as many changes to proposed legislation that they see fit essentially rendering a Directive or Regulation completely useless if they don’t agree with what has been put forth by the Commission. Furthermore, EP has the power to relieve individual Commissioners of their post or dissolve the entire Commission (they’ve done it). In my view these have always been substantially large indications of a democratic system, but everything always works in theory, right?

Through this whole exercise (Brexit) I’ve been frustrated with watching people blame the EU for problems withing the UK. Nobody seems to look at the interaction of the UK government with the EU and how it has played out over the last 40 years. An uncodified constitution and having no constitutional court may function all well and good in a state that is distanced far enough away from the rest of the world, but what happens when you relinquish some of your control to a supranational organization? Things like prerogative powers don’t work so well (the Rees-Mogg case is a good example of this). Another contributing factor to the internal mess that has created Brexit is legislation such as the ECA 1972 and HRA 1998 (ECHR ralted, but still). They are sloppy in my view and do not include the necessary protections. They have left the UK judiciary confused for years. Funnily enough, these were not really highlighted by either side during Brexit although the proposed Bill of Rights was relegated to somewhat of a side show.

Thanks, Sarah. I think your first and third points are strong. On your second point, which was really the thrust of my post, it seems to me that you’re right in a sense—the EU has some democratic features. But enough to give the enterprise democratic legitimacy consistent with the wide scope of the EU’s powers?

One thing that I find very frustrating is that people seem to assume that the EU has no democratic value and I disagree with this. Just because it is not structured the same way as the UK or American system does not mean there is no democratic process. Furthermore, the people of the UK forget that their own government can be voted in with 35% popularity.

That’s not to say that there are not problems with the EU. They are extremely far reaching and it’s too much in my view, but I have a feeling the UK will find that leaving the EU will not have the intended affect that they were looking for because if you want to do business with your neighbour who is substantially larger than you, guess who’s rules will be followed.

Thanks, Peter, for the detailed comment.

An English view, for what it’s worth, is that our governments are elected to govern – they do not normally need to consult the electorate on decisions, and very rarely do so. A referendum is only needed, in my view, if we are signing up to something which fundamentally alters the way in which we are governed, and cannot easily be reversed. On this basis a referendum should arguably have been called before we signed up to the Maastricht treaty. The deeply unpleasant Nigel Farage is correct when he says that the Europe we now live with is not what was voted for in the seventies, and this was the point at which the direction changed.

That said, there still was no obvious need for a referendum at this point – the Maastricht decision belongs to a previous parliament, now buried deep in history. However, the 2010 election resulted in a hung parliament, and the 2015 election appeared to be heading the same way. With many people voicing discontent with the EU, David Cameron promised a referendum if his party were to achieve an overall majority. We will never know, but I suspect this swung enough voters to enabled his party to win the election.

Where we go from here is anyones guess. You are correct in that the referendum is advisory and not legally binding. It can therefore be blocked by Parliament, although this would be unusual. However, I would not be at all surprised if Brexit never happens. The people who have brought this about are now disappearing – David Cameron has resigned as Prime Minister, Boris Johnson did not stand and Nigel Farage has quit UKIP. Article 50 will need to be invoked by Camerons replacement at a time of her choosing. It may be that this time will be delayed until other events overtake the issue and excuses can be made not to go ahead.

A last point on why the UK voted the way it did. The leave campaign was quite distasteful and focused on immigration above all else. I think that’s a shame. The East Europeans I have met have generally been polite and pleasant people with a strong work ethic. However, there are many people living in deprived parts of the country without a job or a decent place to live. Whatever the real reasons for this, to hear from Nigel Farage that it’s the fault of the Poles and we can solve it if we quit the EU is very convenient. A scapegoat and a solution all in one, but the people who voted to leave on this basis are likely to be very disappointed.

There are better arguments for leaving. The EU is deeply flawed in its current form and is full of people who are both unelected and unaccountable making bad decisions that affect us all. Several member states are in a deep economic mess, and it is not just the UK that is disillusioned with the whole project. They waste money hand over fist, and apparently have never been audited. You may have heard of a Spanish state-of-the-art airport which was built at a cost of over a billion Euros, now deteriorating because none of the airlines fly there. And this is not isolated. On a holiday in Tenerife, I was shown a very pretty EU funded harbour which was intended as a ferry port, but is not used for this because it is too shallow at low tide. No one seems to know who is making these daft decisions, but the perception is that similar decisions are made again and again without consequence.

But the biggest argument of all is sovereignty and the right to self govern. The EU has a direct impact on the ability of the UK to make its own laws, so our democracy is undermined because of the restrictions placed on our elected politicians.

Thanks, Bob, for the comment!