Hacker News Reader

the irony is that you're criticising the parent for not understanding the EU, but then you seem to have a limited understanding of how your own country works in reality (vs. someone doing quick read of its description on wikipedia)

the modern house of lords is advisory and completely subordinate to the commons

it is a glorified select committee, there to scrutinise the law and slow it down

the commons can override it, but to do that it has to wait

it's essentially the EU parliament: the inferior chamber that can slightly amend and block law

the sovereign is similar, the commons is superior and last time there was a fundamental disagreement the country became a republic

the UK is full of contradictions like this: formally we're theocracy ruled by an absolute monarch appointed by god

but that's not how it works in practice

vs. say the US, which is the complete opposite on paper (strict republic, limits on power, strict separation of church and state), but then has presidents constantly referring to god and religion being a huge thing in politics

> I find it's better to not throw stones if you live in glass houses.

yes, quite

Ah, so unelected officials are ok.

Just not when it's the EU?

And also, not when they're actually elected. Got it.

> Ah, so unelected officials are ok.

maybe you could point out where I said that

Well, since you glossed over it and then defended it I kinda assumed.

Please explain why the house of lords is ok but the EU commission is not.

If you're not in favour of the HoL maybe we should start there and not spend ages talking about an institution our country does not need to try to ruin anymore: since it left.

and since I now live within its borders, and it applies to me.

> and not spend ages talking about an institution our country does not need to try to ruin anymore: since it left.

absolutely, once "continuity remain" ceases to be a threat to the UK political system

until that happens, I will continue to refute the misinformation of its supporters

Some political scientist argue that after the Lisbon treaty the deficit is a myth but I don't think their statements have much merit. They often argue that parliamentary control wouldn't be the only metric that would quantify democracy but fail to give an answer what would compensate this deficiency.

Not only did the treaty get rejected by some states that were allowed to vote on it, the fact that it is too far removed from citizens and their inadequate participation. In fact I would argue the treaty made it even more undemocratic. The influence of Kutcher compared to European individuals is not the only empirical evidence for that.

The parliamentary control is minimal and there is little overarching political discourse beyond the borders of the nation state. Language barriers are strong and that won't change in the foreseeable future. Until then the commission will run the circus.

> You should be very concerned about our House of Lords...

I think that's ridiculous, though they don't affect much. Waste of money. Not really with the Monarchy, as they aren't affecting anything at all.

> but I feel confident making such a statement as anybody who has spent more than 20 minutes researching how the EU works would know that it's folly to say that they're "unelected authoritarians".

Why would you assume that? Because I am an immigrant? How progressive. FYI you're wrong. What a shock.

> the very idea of a united EU is the opposite of fascism

One fundamental characteristic of Fascism is the centralisation of power in the state, and control/partnership with the private sector (which acts both for itself and for the benefit of the state). This is core to the EU. The logical conclusion of the EU project is a larger, more powerful government. It can't move into a different direction.

Are you aware of the thread that you're into? You can't possibly be missing the irony, but it seems you are.

> The distance between Luxembourg and London is less than the distance between London and Glasgow..

"far away" can also mean culturally, and BTW I'm not in favour of London governing anything in Glasgow either.

But that wouldn't fit into your preconceptions, would it?

> but you're certainly misinformed.

Why would you assume I don't already know everything that you said? I know: because you might be a bit arrogant. That is very apparent.

Just so you know, you contradicted yourself: The EU commission is made of UNELECTED people. They are the ones who draft the laws. Being appointed by someone does not mean elected, it means precisely being unelected.

How silly does one have to be to try to twist the basic meaning of accountability in government?

Now, even if they had been elected directly, the people making laws, or voting on said laws, or influencing policy that affects my country were elected somewhere else.

Nobody outside a given sovereign body should have a say in anything policy-wise within it.