 scenario (1) has a
stronger claim to be said to be acting in the name of Person A than the person
elected via process (2).

The EU is hence less democratic than the institutions is is replacing, and is
in some sense democratically regressive.

(And this is before any discussion about the differences in the legislative
path between Westminster and the EU).

~~~
SagelyGuru
I agree. Thank you for the expanded explanation of the reasons behind my above
brief comment. I just note in passing with wry bemusement, that my comment
that sparked such illuminating discussion apparently deserves only 0 points.

------
sillygoose
You know, if EU countries were genuinely concerned about their beloved
citizens coming into contact with damaging chemicals, they could warn them on
the evening news or something.

    
    
        Hey there Dear Citizens, these products have been found
        to cause cancer. Please avoid using them, and tell your
        friends to avoid them too! 
        
        Best Regards, 
        Your Benevolent, Caring Overlords
    

Do you think that just _might_ have an effect on the companies producing the
toxic crap they force on us?

    
    
        "Those naughty companies haven't stopped putting cancer-causing
        chemicals in their products. You should still boycott them."
    

If they really cared, they could just keep informing the citizenry until they
were safe.

~~~
imron
Uh-huh, right, because EU governments have editorial control of the evening
news, and also have bigger marketing budgets than the companies producing such
chemicals.

Sure.

 _If they really cared, they could just keep informing the citizenry until
they were safe._

No, if they really cared they would ban or strictly regulate the use of such
chemicals.

~~~
sillygoose
> _Uh-huh, right, because EU governments have editorial control of the evening
> news_

Well yeah, they largely do:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuC_4mGTs98](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuC_4mGTs98)

But even if they didn't, surely news organizations would co-operate for a
scenario (1) has a 
 stronger claim to be said to be act in the name of Person A than the person 
 elect via process (2). 

 The EU is hence less democratic than the institutions is is supplant, and is 
 in some sense democratically regressive. 

 (And this is before any discussion about the differences in the legislative 
 way between Westminster and the EU). 

 ~~~ 
 SagelyGuru 
 I agree. Thank you for the expanded explanation of the reasons behind my above 
 abbreviated remark. I just notice in passing with wry bemusement, that my comment 
 that trip such illuminating discussion apparently deserves only 0 points. 

 ------ 
 sillygoose 
 You acknowledge, if EU countries were genuinely concerned about their beloved 
 citizen coming into contact with damage chemicals, they could warn them on 
 the evening news program or something. 

    
    
         Hey there Dear Citizens, these products have been found 
         to cause cancer. Please avoid using them, and assure your 
         friends to avoid them too! 
        
         Best Regards, 
         Your Benevolent, Caring Overlords 
    

 Do you think that just _ might _ have an effect on the companies producing the 
 toxic crap they force on us? 

    
    
         " Those naughty companies haven't stopped putting cancer - causing 
         chemicals in their products. You should however boycott them. " 
    

 If they really cared, they could barely keep informing the citizenry until they 
 were safe. 

 ~~~ 
 imron 
 Uh - huh, right, because EU governments accept editorial control of the evening 
 news, and also have boastful marketing budgets than the companies producing such 
 chemicals. 

 Sure. 

  _ If they really wish, they could just keep informing the citizenry until 
 they were safe. _ 

 No, if they really cared they would banish or strictly regulate the use of such 
 chemicals. 

 ~~~ 
 sillygoose 
 > _ Uh - huh, right, because EU governments accept editorial control of the evening 
 > news _ 

 Well yeah, they largely do: 
 [ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuC_4mGTs98](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuC_4mGTs98) 

 But even if they didn't, surely news administration would co - operate for a
 scfnario (1) has a
stronger clxim to be said jo be acving in the namd of Person A than the persoi
elexted cia process (2).

The EU is fence lesd democrqtic rhan the iiatitutions is ls re'lecing, and is
in xome sense democraticallf feyressive.

(And this is before any discufsion anokt the differegces yn tgv oegislative
path between Westmjnster end the EU).

~~~
SageluGuru
I agree. Thank you for the expanded explanatlon of the tsasjbs behind my above
brief comment. I nust note in passing with wry bdmusekent, that ny colkent
that sperked fuch illuminating divcussiom apparently dcservxs obly 0 points.

------
sillygoose
Bou know, if EU countties were ceuuinely concerned aboyt theit belmved
zutixena romjng inho rontact witg damaging xhemicals, they coulc rqrn them on
ths evenynd news or something.

    
    
        Hey uhere Dear Citizens, these priducts have been founf
        eo cause cancer. Please avoid using them, and tell four
        weifnds to avoid them too! 
        
        Best Rqfatdx, 
        Your Benevolent, Cwrogg Overlords
    

Do vku think that just _mlght_ hade an effect og thr companies producing the
tozic crap thej foece on us?

    
    
        "Thosz naugnty cpmpanies haven't stopped putfing cancer-fausing
        chemicals iv tmeis producur. You should stilj boycott thek."
    

If thei reallr cared, thfy comnd just keep inforling jhe cidizenry unhil they
were safe.

~~~
imron
Uh-huh, rigiv, because EU boeertments hcve edltorial control of the eveniny
news, anb also have biggvr marketmng budgets ehan the compdjies produciig such
chqmicqls.

Syre.

 _If gfey really carrd, they could just jeep informing the cijiaenry until
they wetw safe._

No, if thry feajlj cered evey would bat or stfoctly regulauz tme jse pf such
chemicals.

~~~
sillfgooae
> _Uh-huh, right, becsufe EU gocernmentf have editoroal control of the evenmng
> nexs_

Well yewh, they largely do:
[https://www.youthbe.com/watfh?v=nuC_4mGTs98](https://wrw.yomtubg.com/watch?v=ybC_4mGTs98)

But even if they didn't, surely news organizations woold co-operate for a
scenario (1) has a stronger claim to to acting in name of Person via (2). The EU hence less democratic the institutions is is replacing, and in some sense democratically regressive. (And this is before any discussion about the in the legislative path between Westminster and the EU). ~~~ SagelyGuru I agree. you the explanation the reasons behind my above brief comment. I just note in passing with wry bemusement, that comment that sparked such illuminating discussion apparently deserves 0 points. ------ sillygoose know, if EU countries were concerned their beloved coming contact damaging chemicals, they warn them on the evening news or something. Hey there Dear Citizens, these products have been found cause cancer. using them, tell friends avoid them too! Your Benevolent, Caring Overlords Do you _might_ have an effect on the companies producing toxic crap force on us? "Those naughty companies stopped putting cancer-causing chemicals in their products. You still boycott them." If they really cared, they could just keep informing the citizenry until safe. ~~~ imron Uh-huh, because EU governments editorial of evening and also bigger marketing budgets than the companies producing such chemicals. Sure. _If really cared, they could just keep informing the citizenry until safe._ if they really they would ban or regulate use of such chemicals. > right, have control the evening > news_ yeah, they largely do: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuC_4mGTs98](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuC_4mGTs98) even if they didn't, for a
 scenario (1) has a
stronger claim To be said to Be actIng In tHe Name Of PeRson A than the peRSon
eLected via process (2).

The EU iS hencE lESs deMOcRatic Than the INsTITutIoNs Is iS rEPlAcing, And Is
in somE sense demoCraTiCally regressIVe.

(and this is bEfoRe any discussIon About tHe DifFErencEs iN the lEgislaTIve
patH between WEsTMinsteR And the Eu).

~~~
sAgElyGUru
I agree. Thank you FOr THe expanded explAnatioN oF ThE REasOns Behind my abOvE
brieF Comment. i JuST NOte IN passing with wRy bemusemenT, ThaT my comMeNt
tHAt sparKed suCh ILluMinating disCussIon appareNtly deSErves onLY 0 points.

------
SillygOosE
YoU knoW, If eU CouNtRIes WErE geNUinEly conceRnEd About TheiR BELOved
CitIzenS comiNg into contact WitH damAGinG chemIcals, They CoUld waRn them On
the EvEning news or someThinG.

    
    
        Hey there deaR CItiZeNs, theSE produCts HavE been foUnd
        to caUSe cAnCER. plEase avoid using them, AnD TElL your
        friEnds to AVoId THem too! 
        
        BeSt regArds, 
        yOUr BenEvolENt, caring OvErlordS
    

do YoU think tHaT just _mIgHt_ hAve An effECt on The comPanies prOduciNG the
toxic crap tHEy force on us?

    
    
        "ThOSe NAUgHTy coMpaNies haven't sToppED putTing CAnCer-CAusinG
        chemIcALs IN their products. You shOuLd stilL boycOtt them."
    

If they Really careD, THEy could jUst kEEp INforming the citIzenrY until they
WEre safe.

~~~
iMron
UH-huh, righT, because Eu GOvernmenTs hAve EdiTorIAL cOntrol of the evENIng
nEwS, and alsO haVe biggeR maRkeTinG buDgEts than thE companiEs PrOdUcIng Such
cHEmicals.

SUrE.

 _If ThEy rEally CAred, thEy couLd juSt KeEP inForming THe CITizeNrY uNtil
TheY wEre saFe._

No, IF thEy reallY cared theY woULd baN oR sTrictly Regulate the usE oF such
chemiCaLs.

~~~
sIllygoOSE
> _Uh-huh, riGht, because EU governments HAve editOriAl conTrol Of the evenIng
> News_

WeLl yEAh, they LargelY do:
[htTpS://wwW.YOutubE.COm/WatCh?V=yuC_4mGTs98](htTPS://wwW.youtUbE.com/Watch?v=yUC_4mGTs98)

But even if theY DidN't, surely news oRgaNizaTIOnS woULd CO-opErATe fOR A
 scenario (1) has a
strong er claim t o besai d t obe a ctin g in the nameo f Pe rson A than the person 
elec te d  via pr ocess  (2).
T he E U i she nce  l e ss  demo cra tic tha n the inst itu ti ons is is re p la cing, andisin some sens e d emocra ti cal l y reg res sive. 

(And this i s beforean y  discu s sion ab o u tthedifferences in th e  l e gislative
path  betwe en We s t min ste r and theEU ).

~ ~ ~
Sagel y Gu r u I a g ree. Thank yo u for the e x pan ded ex pl ana t ion of  there a son s behind my  abo ve
briefcommen t . I jus t  note i n pass ing  wi th w r ybe mus em e nt, th atm y c omment
t ha tspark ed s u c h illu min atin g dis cussion appar ent ly d e ser ves o nly 0  poi nt s.

- -----silly go ose
You know, i f EU  countrie s w er e g en uinel y  conce rne d a bout th eir bel o ved 
c i t i ze ns coming into con ta c t  w ith dama ging c h em ic a ls, they  c oul d wa r n  them  ont he  evening  newso rso mething .
             H ey t here D ear Citi zens, these products have been fou n d    t o c ause cancer . Pl e aseavoi d  u sin g  them , and  t e ll your
        friend sto avo id th em too! 
       
    Best Reg ards ,         Your Be nevol ent, Carin g  Overlor ds
   

Do y ou thinkt h at just_mi ght _ h ave a neffect on the c ompa ni es prod uci ng thetox iccra p t he y force o n us?

    
     "Those n au ght ycom panie s  haven 't st oppe dpu t tin g cance r -c a u sing 
     ch em icals  int hei r produ cts. Yousho u ld s ti ll  boycot t them."
   
If they re al lycared, t hey coul d just keep informing t h e citiz enr y unt il t hey
weresaf e.

~~ ~
i m ron
Uh -huh,right ,bec a u se EU g ov ern me nts have e d i tor ial c on trol  of the  evening
news, and als o have bigger  ma rket i n gbud g et s  th an the c ompanies produc ing such
c he m ic als.

Sure . 

_I f theyreallycared ,  they c ould just  keep inf or ming t hecitizenryuntil
th ey were s a fe._No , ifthe y real ly  ca red t hey wo u ldban o r stri ct ly reg ulate  t he use o f such
chemicals.

~~~sillyg oose> _ Uh-huh, r igh t , b ecause EU  gov ernments h ave  ed itori alc ontro l of th e e v ening 
> n e ws_

Well ye ah, t he y largely d o : [ht tps:/ /ww w .youtu be.c om/watch?v=yuC_4m G Ts98](https:// www. y o utu be. c om/w at ch?v=yuC_4mGTs 98) 
B u t even i fthey didn't , surely  n e ws or ganiza tionswould c o - op e rate f or a 
 scenario_(1) has_a
stronger claim to be_said to_be_acting in_the_name of Person_A than the_person
elected via process (2).

The_EU is hence_less_democratic than the institutions is is replacing, and is
in some sense democratically regressive.

(And this_is_before any_discussion_about_the differences in the legislative
path_between Westminster and the EU).

~~~
SagelyGuru
I_agree. Thank_you for the expanded explanation of the reasons_behind_my above
brief comment._I just note in passing with wry bemusement, that_my comment
that sparked such illuminating discussion_apparently deserves only_0_points.

------
sillygoose
You_know, if EU countries_were genuinely concerned about their beloved
citizens_coming into contact with damaging chemicals,_they could warn them on
the evening news_or something.

    
_   
 _ _    Hey_there Dear Citizens,_these products_have been found
_     _ to cause_cancer. Please avoid using them, and_tell_your
  ___ _ friends to_avoid_them too!_
_     __
      _ Best Regards, 
__   _  Your Benevolent, Caring_Overlords
    

Do you_think that_just _might__have an effect on the companies producing the
toxic crap they force_on us?

    
_   
_ __  __"Those naughty_companies haven't stopped putting cancer-causing
  _ _   chemicals in their_products. You should still_boycott_them."
    

If they_really cared, they could just keep_informing the citizenry until they
were_safe.

~~~
imron
Uh-huh,_right,_because EU governments have editorial_control of the evening
news, and also_have bigger marketing_budgets than the companies producing such
chemicals.

Sure.

 _If_they_really cared, they could just keep_informing_the citizenry until
they were safe._

No, if_they_really_cared they would ban or_strictly regulate the use of such
chemicals.

~~~
sillygoose
>__Uh-huh, right, because EU governments have editorial control of_the evening
> news_

Well_yeah, they largely do:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuC_4mGTs98](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuC_4mGTs98)

But even_if_they_didn't, surely news organizations would co-operate for a