The democratic deficit: The removal of democratically elected leaders and their replacement by technocrats

in Greece and Italy, this week has seen the removal of democratically elected leaders who have been replaced by unelected technocrats. To me there are issues around this, in no particular order:
Firstly – these governments are representative governments. There are the result of indirect democracy, not direct i.e. they are elected to represent those who elected them. Therefore, they should have the power to take even the most significant decisions without having to refer back to their electors.
Secondly: something as huge as what's been going on with regards to the austerity measures should have democratic backing. It might even get the people on side
Third: if they hadn't screwed up their economy in the first place they wouldn't be in this situation at all.
Fourthly: elections take time, decisions are needed now.
Fifthly: the needs of the financial markets and ratings agencies are being put above the democratic desires of the populations of these countries. But, at the end of the day the reason for this is that their economy is up the creek and they need to borrow money on someone else's terms.

BBC News - Tories to reverse UK's 'shrinking' clout says Hague‏

"The Conservatives have pledged to reverse what they say is the UK's "shrinking" influence in the world.
Shadow foreign secretary William Hague said the UK's economic and diplomatic clout had fallen under Labour and the UK risked "retreating into its shell".
In a speech in London, he promised "close" ties with the US if the Tories win power, and tougher action on Iran.
Earlier Mr Hague said he would not seek an "instant confrontation" with the EU despite concerns about its direction.
In an interview with the Financial Times, he said the Conservatives had made "a strategic decision" not to start an immediate row over Europe because its priority would be dealing with the UK's budget deficit.
"We have enough on our hands without an instant confrontation with the EU," he told the paper. "

Sounds like a recipe for disaster to me. Like we'll become another small country with an ego far greater than our influence deserves.

And we'll be closer to the US but further from Europe. Highly original thinking that. I mean, hasn't every government promised to be closer to the US but 'frank' when necessary? Hasn't every Tory foreign policy in recent history promised to move us away from those horrible Europeans we're so unlucky to be stuck next to?

I like Europe. I like the people. I don't like the bureaucracy of the institutions, but I prefer it to the American approach.
I just don't see how we can ever really trust a nation that doesn't play football over a continent that does

we'll be relegated to sitting alongside racists and nutters, great plan

"Prime Minister Gordon Brown has said the Tories have been isolated in their response to the recession, in contrast to the leading role that the UK has played in bodies like the G20 in tackling the financial crisis"
That's largely true, without wanting to get into party political arguments (and failing - or rather only succeeding because there's no-one to argue with).

Expelled Tory MEP may sue party in Brussels row‏

I think he's probably got a point.
It just goes to show that even Tories have their moments of good sense

UK anxiety over influence in Europe after crisis‏

It's odd, and I'm not sure national sovereignty is the issue. The UK government has been banging on about the need for regulation, yet when there is talk of regulation, the UK gov is the first to urge caution. Caution is fair enough, but (I think) it was the free market economic policies followed by us here that lead to a bubble and bust. So maybe a bit more regulation and direction (like Germany) would have done us good. The highs wouldn't have been so high, but the lows might not have been so low.
The intervention they finally got around to doing has saved us from being in a far, far worse mess (see Ireland).
But Mandy, Gordy etc. have been going on about the need for international regulation, so I hope they don't then come out and criticise said international regulation.

I don't know too much about French politics, but why would Sarkozy have an "arch-socialist" as a minister?

Cathy Ashton: 10 things to know

Only one really matters though:
– A full-size Dalek stands in the corner of her sitting room. It was a present from her husband
ace

EU President

It's fair to say that "Mr Van Rompuy was widely tipped, but Baroness Ashton was not"

Good to see a British woman get one of the jobs, cool.
I'd prefer it if she'd been elected though, both of them in fact

Britain in and or out of the EU

There are some in Britian, maybe lots, who want to leave the EU.
I don't.
There's a good piece on what might happen here, but it's all very speculative. What would happen? No-one knows.
If we stayed in the common market, we'd just loose influence.
If we left that too, we'd be alongside the other non-EU European powerhouses like Norway (although it is "required to adopt much EU legislation due to its participation in the European Economic Area (EEA), through the European Free Trade Association (EFTA)"), Switzerland, Iceland etc.
So, we stay. Changes we want to see, we make from the heart.


On another small point, if David Cameron is the champion of the poor, why is he desperate to get out of European worker-protection legislation?

The EU

Some mentalist has been ranting on about her views on the EU. She claims it's a loss of democratic sovereignty etc. etc. usual rubbish.
So surely she'd support a referendum on leaving the EU. But no, she opposes it becaise she does NOT "believe that a referendum on leaving the EU altogether would be won by the "no" vote:"
So democracy for those who agree, surpression for those who don't. Simple!
Good old Tories

Cameron on Europem and last 'UK' Prime Minister?

"So the question facing the Tory leadership is quite clear: if, by next May, the Lisbon treaty has come into force and Europe has a new president, quite possibly Tony Blair, will Cameron keep his promise to hold a referendum? Yes or no? It's a straightforward question. He knows that to do so would risk a huge row with the rest of Europe, and a fully operational treaty would be harder to unpick than one not yet signed. That's why until now he has used the weaselly words that, if the treaty is signed, he would "not let matters rest there"."
sums it up pretty well.
Slimy git

"An independent Scotland means a Tory majority in England way into the distant future."
Scarey, but i'd imagine it wouldn't last.
I like Scotland, i love being part of the 'UK' with it. Though i'd prefer the Republic of Great Britain

Boris Johnson on Europe

This like watching a car-crash, I can't believe he's Mayor of London.
I wouldn't put him in charge of anything, blimey

Cameron and Europe

From the FT
Cameron may be stuck in sticky mud over Europe:

"Playing hardball runs the risk of wasting the first year (term?) of a Tory government in a fruitless European battle. The pragmatic route, however, will never satisfy his party"

What will he do? It will certainly be a test of his leadership

"Cameron is the height of ridicule"

The FT, that famously left-wing Labour-supporting publication has come up with my headline of the day so far:
Cameron is the height of ridicule

"He said that Britain’s Conservatives were “hiding behind the Czechs (who have still not full ratified the treaty), which is not very glorious for the UK”.

“This strategy can only weaken the UK in Europe. Look at what happened with the EPP group. They have marginalised themselves. They have fundamentally shot themselves in the foot.”"

The French may not be everyone's favourite, but I think they have a point

William Hague on Europe

William Vague more like. haha.
Anyway, his policy on europe (other than "we're not telling you") can be best characterised by They Do What We Tell Them. How are they going to get Europe to do as they ask? No detail on that, funnily enough