Which Of These Is More Democratically Legitimate

What is the democratic ligitimacy of PM T. May's red lines in her Brexit negotiations?

May’s red lines are democratically legitimate in respect of the fact that May is the democratically chosen leader of the party with the largest majority in the House of Commons.In terms of brexit itself, May’s red lines are entirely of her own making, and there is zero mandate for them, at least in light of the referendum result.There were two options only on the ballot paper - Leave or Remain. That’s it.There was nothing in the Conservatives pre-referendum vision of what brexit would look like, and in fact at that time, leading brexiters were insisting that we actually would stay in the single market. The ECJ was cleverly not mentioned at all, being that it is not actually an EU institution.The only mandate May ever had was “leave the EU” - there was never a mandate to leave the single market, the ECJ, or anything else whatsoever - the tories have taken the mandate to leave the EU, and interpreted it in the hardest, most right-wing way possible.

Is the EU undemocratic in ways that truly matter (as the UK 'Leave' campaign claimed)?

It depends what you mean by “truly matters”.The EU is democratic in the sense that it is the free coming together of democratic States under a set of rules which were decided by their unanimous vote - the Treaties.These Treaties have set up some organisations some of which are directly democratically elected - the European Parliament and some which are appointed by democratic bodies (the Member States), and then ratified by the European Parliament, i.e. the Commission. The Commissions President is technically elected by and responsible to the European Parliament and is the Lead Candidate of the party which won the European Elections.However, the EU is not democratic in the sense of the Government of a Member State. There is no Manifesto, no Government, no Mandate for it to fulfill.But I believe this to be the correct position for a body which is there to fulfill the wishes of the Member States and not to have its own Democratic Legitimacy.I feel the Leave position to be dishonest, as they complain about this lack of Democratic Legitimacy while at the same time not wanting a European Superstate. In my view these two concepts are linked. The more the EU attains Democratic Legitimacy the more it will naturally evolve into a Superstate.So Leave argue for exactly what they don’t want.I am happy with the current balance of powers between the Member States, Parliament and Commission. Things can always be tweaked, but I don’t see a need for massive change.

Is Hamas the legally and democratically elected government of the Palestinian people?

At present, neither Hamas nor Fatah are the legally and democratically elected government of the Palestinian people.Presidential elections for President of the Palestinian Authority were held n January, 2005 and Mahmoud Abbas was elected to a four-year term of office that was supposed to expire in January 2009. It is now July 2018, so Mahmoud Abbas is now in the fourtheenth years of his four-year elected term of office. Long past the date of expiration, and no longer a legitimate elected president, but a dictator ignoring the main concept of democracy: regular elections.The Palestinian Legislative Council was voter for a year later, in January 2006. Hamas actually won a majority of the seats, but Fatah never quite reconciled to the idea. In any case, the representatives of that election are also long past their “Best used by” date, since their terms of office expires eight and a half years ago, so they’re in their thirteenth year of a four-year elected term of office.Democracy isn’t judged by a snapshot of a moment in time, but by its ongoing actions. Since those elections, neither of the parties has behaved or acted in anything remotely resembling a government democratically elected by the people it purports to represent.

Was Adolf Hitler democratically elected? What does his ascendancy show us about human nature?

I am surprised at how many people get this incorrect and wonder how many of the people saying “No” are Americans that have no experience of, or understanding regarding parliamemtary government? The correct answers are either “Yes,” “Yes and No,” or “It’s complicated.” I hate semantics myself and would declare a straight up, “Yes, Hitler was democratically elected.”Weimar Germany had a parliamentary Reichstag, based on a quota system. The focus, like all parliamentary systems, is on the party, not the individual and parliamentary systems have multiple parties. They do not just have two as in the US, so having 50% of the vote or more is irrelevant, all that matters is that you have the largest minority and if that minority is insufficient for a clear majority as defined in their constitution, you simply form a coalition government.Hitler becoming Chancelor in 1933 resulted from the democratically elected seats that his party held. As head of the party, Hitler could either be directly elected to a position, like the one he lost to Hindenburg, or he could gain the Chancellorship by his party having a clear majority in the Reichstag and get appointed by the President, OR HE COULD become Chancellor without a clear majority via a coalition government… It is the last option that saw Hitler rise to power and the “back room deals” many Americans lament as having got him there, were simply a normal part of forming a coalition government in a democratic parliamentary system. Hitler’s party was elected, it formed a legitimately democratic coalition government with a condition of that coalition being Hitler’s appointment to the chancellery… Which was just the German title (although much weaker position) of Prime Minister. So yes, Hitler was elected via his role as party leader within a democratic institution.Chancellor of GermanyThe Weimar ReichstagRise of Hitler: The Republic Collapseshttp://diebesteallerzeiten.de/bl...