> But the EU does have a directly elected parliament? So where's the lack of democracy in the EU?
I'm not a European, but could it be that the bloc has gotten so large that an individual's vote is so diluted that it feels like it's not a democracy? Especially considering the number of different nationalities and language-groups of various sizes that are supposed to be represented by that one body.
I think federalism is a good idea because, at the end of the day, I want to be ruled by a government that represents my community, not some abstract mass of people.
Also note that EU bureaucracy is utterly bewildering to anyone who does not spend their whole life following it.
The average British person has no idea how the EU works. They don't know what the different bodies are. They don't know who their representative(s) are. They don't know how to make their voices heard. Maybe a third of people vote in the elections, and they don't really know what they're voting for.
How many Brits know that bishops sit in the house of Lords? Some know, sure, but many? How many of us know what the Privy Council is and who the members are? What powers are purely ceremonial and which have teeth? Why can't MPs resign like normal people? How and why there is judicial independence from parliament seems to be news to the Secretary of State for Justice, if she doesn't know how it works what hope do the general population have? Even how laws are passed seems to surprise people — "The Lords might disagree with us? Abolish them!" — to say nothing of the difference between primary and secondary legislation.
The UK has a constitution, but it's not written down in one place for convenience and understanding, it's spread over time-worn ritual, over the Queen's Speech and slamming doors in the face of Black Rod.
Maybe it's time for that last one to change. Refactoring a system in a well-intentioned way can optimize a lot of inefficient and ineffective approaches and gives an opportunity to bring things that may be scattered about in to locality for increased comprehension and decreased error in modification.
Although I expect some improvements to be possible, I doubt it's practical to do the sort of large-scale transformation that would really make a difference.
I mean, I keep reading stories about how famous corporations have terrible codebases which they can't fully fix it, and we're in a domain where deployment is trivial amd doesn't literally cost the time of the entire legal profession to familiaise themselves with the changes.
I'd love to be wrong. The saying "ignorance of the law is not an excuse" is necessary, yet at the same time not possible when the law is as complex as it is now.
How is the EU bewildering, compared to any other government bureaucracy?
The ignorance of the average British person about the actual functioning of the EU is indeed a problem, and probably a major contributor to Brexit, but that seems more of a failing of British education and media rather than the EU itself.
> I think federalism is a good idea because, at the end of the day, I want to be ruled by a government that represents my community, not some abstract mass of people.
What size do you think is the best for a democracy then? 10,000 people? 1000,000? The US is as big as the EU and certainly has a lot more centralized legislation.
So many issues today (taxes, trade, environmental protection, immigration, etc.) involve very large groups of people (if not all people), and so it really makes sense to have a body of representatives from all those people together. Some issues may only affect the local community (however big that is) and so of course the local community can take care of those.
My thought is something roughly the size of a large city state, or small regular state. Or the size of a US state. Or whatever the people of an area decide.
But don't we already have that with city/major councils? Are you arguing that these councils should just be given slightly more influence than they have now?, or that we don't need anything larger than them at all?
>What size do you think is the best for a democracy then? 10,000 people? 1000,000? The US is as big as the EU and certainly has a lot more centralized legislation.
The following is in the context of a representative democracy/republic:
Interesting question, as far as elected representatives and their number of constituents, I certainly support a maximum threshold, in the range of 10's of thousands at most. When groups larger than this are directly represented by single elected officials, it seems to increase the likelihood of the represented feeling removed or effectively excluded from the political process, which results in the sentiment (I suppose it's a leaning toward anti-globalist ideals) towards abstract, large centralized governance we see in many Brexit supporters as well as a portion of the supporters for Donald Trump in my home country the USA.
Interesting notes regarding American law on this topic:
"The U.S. Constitution called for at least one Representative per state and that no more than one for every 30,000 persons." [1]
The Appointment Act of 1911 and subsequent Permanent Appointment Act of 1929 capped the total number of House congressional representatives at 435 [2], so the degree of seperation between an individual elector and their representative in any given congressional district continues to grow as population increases. This also has an effect on the Electoral College, as it's membership numbers are based on the number of congress persons. Furthermore, I will assume this limit, combined with a growing population will increase the chances of a Presidential Candidate winning election without also winning the national popular vote, as we have seen on multiple occasions in recent decades.
I'm not a US American, but could it be that the bloc (of states) has gotten so large that an individual's vote is so diluted that it feels like it's not a democracy? Especially considering the number of different nationalities and language-groups of various sizes that are supposed to be represented by that one body.
One huge difference: There just are no inner-EU discussions and there is no EU-wide media. Everything takes place at the nation level. This is probably due to 24 different languages being spoken and most people cannot speak english well. But this will not change in the next 20 years.
Also heterogenity: A Texan surely has more in common with a New Yorker than a Portugese with a Latvian. This is not only about "values", but about consumed tv shows in the childhood, about similar experiences in school and about learned history - in short, culture.
It's mostly about the language and acquired culture. If they spoke the same language, a Portuguese and a Latvian will find that they get along extremely well.
Hell, I'd say language is the only barrier for those open minded who can learn about new cultural phenomenons and think before deciding whether they like/approve/hate/reject it...
Much of the work of the EU is done by the European Commission, which consists of one senior appointee from each member state. On one hand this is clearly not particularly democratic, but on the other hand it gives the member governments an avenue to make policy that doesn't go via their population, which is why none of the member governments wants to change it.
My point is that the more people feel detached from the political process, the less responsible they feel to take an active part in the process. This is why I believe that a regional government is to be preferred over a centralistic government.
I'm aware that not all problems can be solved on a regional level, but those that can, should. This is especially true on a cultural more diverse landscape such as Europe compared to e.g. the US.
Regarding your second question, lack of democracy: one thing that comes to mind is the lack of binding referendums and initiatives, as it happens e.g. in Switzerland on a regular basis.
Is there any that evidence the optimal administrative size for people not to feel "detached from the political process" is at state level? Why not further devolve sovereignty further to the british isles, regions, cities or counties?
The absurdity of it all is that the Tories say "It's good to leave the union" when the subject is Brexit, while also saying "It's not good to leave the union" when the subject is Indyref 2
The Nordic states are about 5M people each, and they routinely top the score cards for general wellbeing. Some people (who?) have suggested that 5M might be an optimal number.
> Why not further devolve sovereignty further to the british isles, regions, cities or counties?
That's a great idea, and precisely what they do in Switzerland. Stuff that's local is decided locally. What days are holidays? Depends on what canton you're in. How are schools organised? Local. What are taxes? Local.
That doesn't mean you can't organise some things on a national level, for instance the military, and federal projects like the excellent technical universities. And there's a federal tax to go with it.
If little regions had more power it would be a lot easier as an individual to shop around for the area you like, and for experiments to be made.
> Not to mention the hypocrisy of voting to remain and then championing the effort to leave.
I'm not sure if you're referring to Scotland/Indiref 2 -
but there's no hypocrisy if the voter's intention in both cases is to remain in the EU. Maybe you're referring to Theresa May? If so, I fully agree.
I have no desire to re-hash this particular argument, but the margin, 48/52 was very small. Very close to 50/50. And the turnout wasn't perfect. I've heard that only something like 30% of the eligible voters voted to leave.
There was no "will of the people". The people were undecided.
And then there's the fact that Britons settled in Europe didn't have a vote.
Whatever you can say about voting rights for overseas citizens in general elections, this vote was explicitly removing rights that they are currently exercising as part of EU membership — arguably they are the most affected by the outcome, yet were disenfranchised.
The often cited claim that the EU is undemocratic stems from a difference of opinion what "democratic" actually means.
First of all: there is barely any nation that is truly democratic in the historic sense of the word. Most democracies are actually representational systems: citizens don't vote on every single issue, they elect someone to represent them and vote in their name. Who each representative actually represents and how their votes are weighed varies but this is what almost all so-called democracies in existence have in common.
Additionally representatives may sometimes again elect other representatives who vote in their name in another group, or they may elect solitary rulers who act in their name. Keep in mind, this is a gross (and incorrect) simplification, but these are all things that happen in systems most people would call democratic.
Specifically:
The European Parliament is elected in a way most people would agree can be described as democratic: every EU citizen gets a vote. The MEPs are directly elected. This is pretty straightforward and not unlike how national governments are generally elected.
The MEPs elect the President of the European Parliament. Depending on what your national government's elections look like this may also be perfectly normal and expected.
There's also the European Commission. This is where things get slightly weirder: the Commission consists of one person per member nation but they are bound by oath to the EU rather than their own nation. One of them is the President of the European Commission who is proposed by the European Council and then confirmed by the European Parliament. The Council then nominates the other commissioners which are approved by the President of the European Commission.
The European Council in turn consists of all heads of state of the member nations plus the President of the European Council and the President of the European Commission (but they don't get to vote). The President of the European Council in turn is elected by the European Council.
So in other words there are basically two groups of people both ultimately elected by EU citizens:
As a EU citizens you get a direct vote for the European Parliament, which elects the President of the European Parliament.
Additionally you (presumably) get a direct vote in your own national elections and your elected national governments gets to send its head of state (or a representative, plus maybe some non-voting attendees) to the European Council, which elects the President of the European Council.
Finally both the European Council and European Parliament (i.e. the representatives of the citizens and the representatives of the member nation governments) together elect the European Commission.
Yes, it's complicated (but in honesty all governments are if you try to understand them in detail) but I can't for the life of me see why you would call them undemocratic in comparison to any other "democratic" system.
I think "undemocratic" is just a shorthand for "subject to the will of other people than my own nation's citizens", which is the entire point of the EU and the only way you can have international organisations.
The complaint makes much more sense if you consider that the perspective of the EU critics that usually make this complaint isn't "we're part of the EU" but "the EU tries to tell us what to do". It's not so different from Americans who complain about "the government" because they see their ultimate authority at the state level than the federal level.
The Commission gets a bad rap because basically it's been stuffed with cronies and friends of council members. The UK may be the worst for this, we had one Commissioner who had been disgraced out of the UK cabinet twice, and then found himself in a nice 'untouchable' position on the Commission.
He's now a Lord.
There are flaws in UK democracy certainly but I don't think the EU got it right.
I also fundamentally have a problem with the scale of the thing - any government of a bloc that large is going to have problems with being unrepresentative. I look at Switzerland and Iceland with envy - the people can achieve change there. The USA, EU, even UK? Not so much.
The problem with the structure of the EU is basically: How do you set up a supranational state without massive constitutional changes in all the member states? Because the appetite is not there for large constitutional changes.
The result was basically a giant hack on top of the existing systems by leveraging the authority that the member state governments have to act as agents of their state in carrying out their duties under treaties.
More and more power has been handed to the EU Parliament with various treaty changes etc., but there is a limit there in that ultimately without enshrining the power of the EU Parliament in the member states constitutions, it is impossible to cede the kind of power vested in the member state governments to the EU Parliament.
So the irony is that a lot of the centralisation of power in EU organs is a result of opposition to further integration. Pretty much nobody likes the current structure of the EU. The problem is people dislike it different reasons: Some because they want the power handed back to the individual states. Some because they want a federalised EU or similar.
The irony there is that Brexit might end up a catalyst for tighter integration, because the UK has been one of the biggest brakes on that process.
> I look at Switzerland and Iceland with envy - the people can achieve change there. The USA, EU, even UK? Not so much.
I don't agree with this. There are policy areas we can't easily change unilaterally, sure. But at the same time, when a change is agreed there is far more power behind it. Some policies only make sense to make at large scale, some makes to push down as far as possible. Ideally I'd like to see the end of modern day nation states through devolution of as much power as possible. But some decisions will still need to be taken at a higher level.
As it stands, in the UK there is still plently of power at the local level, and while I am very upset at Brexit, the UK at least has one thing going for it in an ongoing long lasting process of gradually devolving more and more power to local councils and regions.
>>The problem with the structure of the EU is basically: How do you set up a supranational state without massive constitutional changes in all the member states? Because the appetite is not there for large constitutional changes.
Perhaps, don't?
If you can't take the people of a democracy with you on a project, perhaps it's best not to try and build such a thing anyway, and then end up with a hack?
On the rest - I would come to a similar state but from a different direction full autonomy for small democratic units, who voluntarily delegate some authority rather than get granted powers from "above"
The reason the EU always wanted to have the UK on board had more to do with marketing than with necessity: Europe is France, England and Germany; if the EU was to be Europe, it needed those three in it or it isn't going to happen. It's also Spain and Portugal, Belgium and the Netherlands. The more the merrier. Open a history book and if a country playing a major role on the European continent is in it, it should probably be on that list.
But the EU now already exists and the UK has been so insistent on having a special status that Europeans have gotten used to the idea of the UK not "really" being in it despite being just another European country like the rest of us.
It's okay.
You can leave.
We no longer need you for the EU to be able to exist.
We tried to accommodate you and make it work but we've understood that the feelings aren't mutual.
We'll still keep in touch with your extended family, though, and maybe over the next two years we can find a way that you can still come over to party sometimes, or y'know, just hang out if you feel like it.
Once again, I get the feeling you know very little about the details of the EU.
The UK's attempt to join the (forerunner to the) EU was vetoed multiple times, by France. Your first sentence about how the EU "always wanted to have the UK on board" is factually and historically false. It never needed the UK to exist and it doesn't need it now.
As for "no hard feelings", tell that to your politicians, not us. Because they seem to think most so-called Europeans want the opposite.
Heh, I hope this sort of attitude prevails on both sides of this. There's no need for nastiness and lets hope the outcome is relatively positive with the repective parties feeling more free to pursue their own directions.
> we've understood that the feelings aren't mutual.
48% of Brits, 62% of Scots don't feel that way.
And literally no one in the UK voted for what the government is currently doing or how shittily it is treating it's EU partner governments or EU guests living in the UK.
We'll be back, hopefully less arrogant the next time.
"Played a major role in European history" is a very silly criterion. By those standards Russia, Austria, Spain, or even Turkey should be much higher on the list than Britain.
I think that's a fair description of how these things tend to work. Your only mistake is the assumption that because it's very silly nobody would actually use it, let alone that it wouldn't be incredibly widespread.
But as for the list, the EU came into being after WW2 so the USSR was out, Austria was politically irrelevant and Spain was a fascist dictatorship. Plus Turkey is on the other side of the Black Sea and the Greek really don't like them.
> If you can't take the people of a democracy with you on a project, perhaps it's best not to try and build such a thing anyway, and then end up with a hack?
The people have consistently voted for parties that wanted at least this level of integration. The problem has been that people disagree about how far to go, not that there has not been support for tighter integration.
Often to get from one local maxima to a higher local maxima you end up with options in between that are worse in various ways. Doesn't mean there aren't people who prefer to get there even if they're unable to get enough support to go further.
> On the rest - I would come to a similar state but from a different direction full autonomy for small democratic units, who voluntarily delegate some authority rather than get granted powers from "above"
I would argue that the delegation of powers and the dynamic of the power relationshio have been quite wrong in the case of the EU.
I agree, the people have voted for parties that had these policies. The problem is, people vote for the same two (occasionally three or four) parties regardless, and then expect them to change. Somewhat silly!
Lots of people wanted it to become a state. The ideal of a European state as a way of preventing war in Europe dates back centuries, and has been regularly proposed again. The most serious recent proposal being Winston Churchill who specifically argued for a United States of Europe after the war.
Churchill's efforts were a major factor in the establishment of the Council of Europe (not EU), and the European Court of Human Rights (CoE; not EU) and what became the EEC/EU.
So while many people involved also did not want to go all the way, historically the origin of the EU includes a lot of people who went into it with the explicit goal of eventually turning it into a state.
A core principle ever since the Treaty of Rome in 1957 has been to create "an ever closer union". You can't do that without eventually ending up with a state.
Heck, the Holy Roman Empire was basically that. From a modern point of view you could say "but it's basically just Germany" but Germany wasn't a thing back then. Except of course the Holy Roman Empire was a monarchy.
As for Britain's involvement in establishing the Council of Europe, I've heard Brits joke that Britain created the EU to keep the continent busy, not to be a part of it.
Iceland is part of the EEA through EFTA and as such needs to follow much of EU legislation without any real say in what it is. The country is actually split about 50/50 in whether they should continue talks to join the EU proper.
No, I think the point may have been missed - I envy the small size of their democracies and how they are able toneffect change as a result, not their interactions with the EU that stifle the ability of these populations to make change.
E.g. Switzerland's recent attempts to curtail freedom of movement.
On the world stage Iceland is irrelevant. It's a lot like Switzerland without influence. Sure, Iceland can afford to be eccentric about world politics because it's not under the direct influence of other countries to the same extent as most are but it also doesn't hold any real influence itself. The UK doesn't want to be Iceland, it wants to be like Iceland but with the political weight of the US.
Switzerland is more relevant, especially financially, but Switzerland is in a unique position that is the result of centuries of European history and of course its location and geography. The UK is just a bunch of islands off the coast of France that used to be a naval superpower (like Portugal). The UK can't be Switzerland because it isn't already Switzerland -- Switzerland is Switzerland.
If anything, Brexit was fuelled by impotent rage: the UK used to be an Empire, now her citizens are supposed to bow to a council of European nations and become just another cog in the machine of the continent. We want our Empire back! We're important! We shouldn't be subject to Europe, we should compete with it directly.
Except the UK doesn't matter anymore either. The UK used to matter up to WW 2 where it exhausted its remaining military might to help keep the free world free (which btw as a German I fully acknowledge and am thankful for). But even then it had already lost (or was in the process of losing) its colonies and was largely confined to its homeland and some assorted junk territories that ultimately don't matter much (sorry, Falkland islands).
Geographically, the UK needs to establish a working relationship with the EU to survive. Before Brexit it had it all: it was a member of the EU but had been able to negotiate special statuses all along the way by threatening to leave. Now it basically has to start from scratch and has only its own worth to prop itself up during the upcoming 2 years of bartering.
And that worth isn't much, to be honest. Sure, London is one of the most important financial centres of Europe. But in a large part it only stayed that way because Britain heavily relied on special exemptions from EU rules while still drawing on the benefits of that market. Sure the UK now definitely gets to keep its currency, but it no longer competes with Frankfurt but with New York, Tokyo and Shanghai. It's not a big fish in a pond anymore. And the pond has no more reason to be impressed. Economically the UK relies heavily on extremely expensive imports (it's a bunch of islands after all) and those are only going to become more expensive after leaving the EU. The financial centre is the biggest asset and its importance is heavily impacted by Brexit. Things are looking grim.
So in other words: the UK won't be the next Switzerland. It may become the next Iceland. But only in the sense that it will be out in the sea off the shore of France, doing its own thing while occasionally pouting about how silly everyone is and nobody will pay any attention.
At least this is the course Brexit seems to have taken the UK on. And if Scotland makes true on its threats to secede from the union, the UK may just end up as the good old England and Wales all alone, surrounded by Europe. But on the plus side Wales may finally have some pressure to get the UK to put that dragon on the flag.
I really can't see what you've got this idea about Empire and self-importance from. Seriously, it's not something anyone in the UK thinks about. Given recent history, I wonder if you are projecting your own Imperial ambitions onto the UK?
13% of UK GDP is from European trade (fact). So whilst the UK would quite like a trade deal it is hardly reliant on it. Any loss from tariffs on European trade may well be exceeded from the resulting drop in tariffs with non EU nations. Biggest difference post Brexit will be less BMWs and more Kias.
I think the thing you're missing is that the UK has a long history of democracy and slow improvements to it. Large parts of Europe do not have such a libertarian consciousness.
I'm sorry, you lost me when you started on about empire, I've seen nobody calling for a return to empire, or even invoking empire except as a way to harangue and belittle those who voted leave.
You seem very hostile to the UK generally. Weird given your last comparatively friendly comment.
> You seem very hostile to the UK generally. Weird given your last comparatively friendly comment
We'd better get used to this. Just look at statements by European politicians since the vote. Occasionally they make a token attempt to be friendly, and saying how of course everyone wants what's best for everyone, but then they go right back to talking about how awful it'll be for the UK and how it's like suicide, how they'd never be stupid enough to let people vote on the EU, etc.
My experience of anyone who thinks of themselves as "European" or a supporter of the EU is actually, when the surface is scratched, extremely angry and vicious. They want the UK to bleed and bleed hard, because they think if it doesn't their dream of a united European future will end. And they are correct: at this point the only thing holding the EU together is fear. They unfortunately don't see how dystopian this makes them.
> My experience of anyone who thinks of themselves as "European" or a supporter of the EU is actually, when the surface is scratched, extremely angry and vicious.
Well that's a delightfully insulting, sweeping and utterly untrue generalisation.
Whatever makes you feel validated in your choices though I guess. It's easier to assume your opponents are just full of hate and anger instead of trying to understand that they are people with actual thoughts and concerns that are opposed to yours.
There is a very real pro-Monarchy, post-Empire resentment of anything not British among a large section of the British people. They might not say it out loud, but it's clear in the things they say.
I think that is untrue. This thread is the first time I've heard anyone mention Empire in connection with Brexit.
There is xenophobia but I think if you look closely you'll find that in most European countries as well. No doubt that instinct will now be directed at the British.
You make good points, but the problem is in most countries knowledge of MEPs is close to nil. Turnout for European Parliament elections is also abysmal, in the UK 35%, NL 37% and even France and Germany are in the low 40s.
It would be even lower if other elections weren't tagged along with the EU ones (eg usually the UK has local elections at the same time).
There is an enormous amount of voter apathy towards the EU democratic processes. That starts IMO reducing the democratic legitimacy of the whole thing.
I don't think it's fair to blame the voters. If there were influential elections that nobody was voting in, then a few hardcore members of the electorate would see the potential and be all over them.
It seems much more likely that the voters are correctly detecting that the elections are not that important, either because the parliament has insufficient influence on EU policy, or because the candidates have insufficient influence on the parliament's decisions, or because the parties are all as bad as each other.
Why would you vote for an organisation you never wanted to be a part of in the first place? How does exercising your right to vote (or not) indicate that? Wanting to leave and voting are separate, but coupled, factors.
I always have voted out of duty as a citizen to vote, but it always felt like a waste of time. The MEPs are unknowns you never see, and the proceedings are so divorced from regular politics that they seem like they serve little practical purpose in representing our views. Particularly when the people you are voting for are then members of supranational blocs with their own agendas. It's so far removed from the individual voter that it seems like they could do whatever they wanted and claim a mandate for it. I don't think democracy is particularly effective at this scale.
Exactly. Either the EU is powerful and infringing on people's lives, but then it must be important. Or it's irrelevant and unimportant, but then it's not a threat. Yet the Brexit "sovereignty" argument is often reiterated alongside the complaint that the EU doesn't actually do anything.
I think it's a little more complicated than people not being bothered to vote. The European Parliament has relatively little power (e.g. to propose new laws) compared to a typical national parliament. I think people see that and also see that Euroskeptic MEPs are largely ignored. In the last UK European elections, UKIP won the most seats. That didn't get reflected in any shift in policy did it?
Any? Certainly. How much I would not want to say — my opinion is that UKIP created the dissatisfaction that they fed upon for votes. But that's just opinion.
I think it's unlikely that members skeptical of the institution itself would have much influence.
I think the Leavers were dissatisfied from the beginning. You can directly trace the formation of UKIP from the Maastricht Rebels. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maastricht_Rebels in the Major government.
UKIP was formed out of protest at what they saw as the EU going off in a highly political direction (i.e. becoming a lot more than just an economic area).
They may be wrong but the objections are based on fundamentals.
Those skeptics certainly started skeptical, but they were also a tiny minority. I was thinking about the people who they convinced to side with them, and how UKIP's refusal to participate in any meaningful way may have created the evidence they needed to convince people the EU wasn't listening.
The EU might have retained popular respect with UK voters if the MEPs that the UK sent to parliament had voted in accordance with their electorate's desires rather than not-voted-because-they-are-a-protest.
Or not. Quite a lot of stuff in the media that is anti-EU, too. That might be more powerful.
I just don't think many people in the UK in general (not just Parliament and the media) like the EU. I spoke to a lot of people who voiced anti-EU sentiment but voted Remain out of fear of the consequences. I remember there being just as much if not more dislike in the early 90's after Black Wednesday.
I'm not sure what you mean by a tiny minority. IIRC the UK Parliament voted against Maastricht twice and it went through on the third attempt. I think UKIP has exploited and perhaps stoked the skepticism, but IMO did not create it.
This polling history shows wild oscillation over time, and the EU was formed from its predecessor just as things were close. I had been under the impression it was a gradual shift from the high of 1979 to the low of 2016.
Regardless, "stoked" sounds like a good description of UKIP's behaviour to me, so I think we may be agreeing with each other.
No. People see the EU as undemocratic because Parliament is neither the main policy-making body nor the main executive power. It is more of a supervisory body, akin to the role of Congress or the House of Lords. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament#Control_of...
And the reason it is is that they don't want their own democratically elected governments to lose sovereignty. If you give the EU parliament more power, the national parliaments must lose power.
I don't see how one is more democratic than the other.
I'm saying that the EU is not sufficiently democratic because its executive bodies are not elected by the people whereas in national parliaments they are.
I'm not saying that national governments should give up sovereignty. I'm saying that what powers the EU already has should be more directly democratic.
Yes but mainly the executive parts. No doubt the UK government could be more democratic but however imperfect it is why would you want to layer something on top of it that is even less democratic?
Sorry, I missed the bit where the Council doesn't consist of the democratically heads of states of the member nations (or their individually appointed delegates).
If your country's Council member doesn't represent your interests, that's not the EU's fault, that's your government's fault.
Literally every person who gets to do anything in the EU Parliament, Commission or Council is ultimately in that position because of a democratic election in that member nation -- be it via the direct vote for the Parliament, the national election for the head of state or the combination of those two for the Commission.
The EU isn't full of corporate cronies because the EU sucks. The EU is full of corporate cronies because the member nations' governments suck. And that includes the UK (which in the EU has been at the forefront of various things people like to complain about -- including in the UK itself).
Let's caricature this a little bit: suppose it were a rule of the EU that each national government had to appoint half a dozen people to receive a million-euro salary straight from EU funds (that means, of course, from funds that ultimately the member states paid into the EU budget themselves) for doing nothing.
Even assuming the citizens of member states were fully conscious that this was happening, who do you think would be appointed to those positions? Who would you say sucks in this scenario, the member state governments or the EU?
I'd assume the government should take full responsibility for who it appoints to receive the subsidies and what they do with them.
But we're not talking about slush funds for doing nothing, we're talking about who makes policy. And funnily enough in Westminster we also have a Cabinet and PM setting the policy agenda that are chosen not by some universal franchise but nominated by the representatives of different localities. The transfer of executive power from the MP for Witney to the MP for Maidenhead happened without the involvement of a single person outside the political class, and I didn't vote for any of the Bill Select Committees proposing new legislation or any of the individuals heading up any of the departments responsible for implementing it. And so yeah, I'm holding Conservative MPs rather than the public or the drafters of Britain's constitution responsible for how Brexit gets implemented
Weirdly, few of the people insisting that the UK must leave because of the terrible system of government the EU has are remotely bothered about similar democratic deficits in Westminster.
Most of the tangible criticism/drama about the EU I've seen in UK media is actually about things people UK citizens or the UK government elected or otherwise put into those positions.
The UK was a major driving force behind many of the international trade agreements that are being criticised for infringing on the rights of EU citizens, for example.
That's not at all the problem with EU democracy. I'm sorry but you've clearly not understood the issues even slightly, given such a long explanation that overlooks the actual problem. The EU can never solve its issues when people are so confused about it.
The reason the EU Parliament isn't democratic is that its members can't actually change the law, which means it isn't a Parliament at all. Because MEPs can't change EU law, they can't have any policies. Because they can't have any policies, their "politics" such that it is simply boils down to how pro or anti EU they are. Inevitably, given the uselessness of the EU Parliament as an institution, the vast majority of people who run for election to it are ideologically driven EU-philes who are true believers in the vision and just want to be close to it. This means it is worthless even as a check and balance, so people tune out, which is why nobody knows or cares who their MEP is.
Moreover, even despite this withered and pointless setup, the EU Parliament fails to even be open and democratic within its constitutional limits. Last year all EU law was made in secret "trilogue" meetings that don't formally exist, so you can't find out when they happen, get notes, find out who attended etc. These meetings are not mentioned in the treaties for obvious reasons, yet they now are how the EU makes law. Only North Korea and the EU make law in secret this way.
Yes ... even if all these problems were solved, the EU would still have the problem of being far too large. But there's a thousand major reforms needed before that becomes the top issue and the EU's deceptively named 'democracy' has gone backwards over time, not forwards.
When I think "undemocratic", I think about the EU Constitution being rejected in a vote. Oh, OK, we'll just come back with the Lisbon Treaty, which you won't get to vote on.
Somebody (Netherlands or Ireland, I think, but I forget which) has an election about an EU matter, and it goes "the wrong way". The EU's response: Well, they'll just have to vote again.
Forgive me if the details are wrong (I'm writing from memory, and I'm not even in the EU). But that kind of thing has happened more than once - "the EU" has decided on a direction, and democracy is not going to be allowed to change it. That is why people feel the EU is undemocratic (as I understand it). The structure of the EU Parliament has nothing to do with it.
1. The European Commission is elected by the European Parliament.
2. The European Commission has the power to initiate legislation, but EU legislation is enacted by the European Parliament (lower chamber of the legislature) and the Council of the European Union (upper chamber of the legislature). This is why EU legislation begins with "REGULATION/DIRECTIVE ... OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL" [1].
First, the President is nominated. While this is technically a power of the European Council (not to be confused with the Council of the European Union), in 2004 the Parliament won the right to determine the president and the nomination by the European Council is only a formality. (Similar to the appointment of the British PM by the British monarch).
In practice, the choice of president is now the result of the elections to the European Parliament through the so-called "spitzenkandidaten" process [1], where each group in the EP nominates a candidate and the candidate of the largest party that can command a majority in the EP is chosen, who is then formally appointed.
Second, the Commission President in conjunction with the member states nominates the remaining commissioners. The EP conducts hearings, after which the Commission is voted on. The EP can reject the Commission. In 2014, this resulted in the rejection of the Slovenian commissioner [2] and the Hungarian commissioner being stripped of the citizenship portfolio [3] as the result of questions regarding Hungary's human rights record.
The EP can also remove the Commission through a motion of censure, Article 234 TFEU. This is what happened to the Santer commission (except that they resigned before the EP could vote them out of office).
Note that under the British system, the Prime Minister and his or her cabinet does not even have to face hearings. The members of the cabinet are simply chosen by the PM, the PM is appointed by the monarch.
That only the Commission can initiate legislation is not much of an issue and has more to do with how complex EU legislation is, which has to conform to the legislation of all the member states. The EP can propose legislation through Article 225 TFEU, can attach legislation to other legislation (such as the budget) through amendments if necessary (similar to how the US Senate gets around the Origination Clause) and simply force the Commission to initiate legislation or block other legislation (or, in the worst case, vote the Commission out of office).
1) you do understand that "unelected" doesn't mean "no vote was held". For example in the us system the supreme Court justices and the president's cabinet are referred to as "unelected" although they are held to confirmation votes in the us legislative assembly.
2) it doesn't strike you that this convoluted process with several confusing and in some cases similarly named governing organizations is itself the problem? It gives enough of a shade of the franchise to call itself "democratic" while insulating itself from the consequences through technicality and obfuscation of responsibility
> 1) you do understand that "unelected" doesn't mean "no vote was held". For example in the us system the supreme Court justices and the president's cabinet are referred to as "unelected" although they are held to confirmation votes in the us legislative assembly.
Then the British PM is also unelected, as is the British cabinet. Heck, it's even worse, as they're directly appointed without the House of Commons even getting to vote.
> 2) it doesn't strike you that this convoluted process with several confusing and in some cases similarly named governing organizations is itself the problem?
I am not particularly enamored with the names myself, but the process is not particularly convoluted in practice. I was spelling out the details in an effort to avoid technical quibbles.
The moment the EPP won the EP elections in 2014, it was pretty clear that Jean-Claude Juncker would be Commission President, even though it technically involved a couple more steps, which mirror the steps that other countries have, too (for example, in Germany, the Chancellor is also technically nominated before the election by the President and thereafter formally appointed, but as in the EU, these are purely formal steps in practice).
And let's not get started with the election process for the US president.
The election of the Commission is not more complicated than the election of the American Cabinet. One could do away with it, of course, as Britain does, but that would reduce democratic legitimacy, so I don't see the point.
The British prime minister and cabinet are all elected. They are elected MPs like any other, who are selected by their party to perform additional duties. That is not at all the case with the members of the European Commission.
1. When we're talking about this, this is generally about an election to the executive office the person holds, not the legislature. Plenty of countries have cabinet positions that are specifically not drawn from the legislature as the result of separation of powers. After all, part of the reason for an election to executive office is the control of the executive by the legislature.
2. British cabinet ministers can also come from the House of Lords and not just from the House of Commons. This is rare in modern times, though the Leader of the House of Lords, a cabinet position, always is a member of the Lords.
I'm sorry it's not false, and in fact you've more or less confirmed what I said, the Commission is put in place by the Council and they originate all legislation.
This byzantine system, so thoroughly removed from the populace, is one of the reasons I'm not sad we're leaving.
It is not. Even if you want to dispute the fact that the Commission President is de facto chosen by the voters and elected by the EP, the European Council has zero role in the selection of the remaining commissioners, who are nominated by the member states in consultation with the Commission President.
I'm not sure how you can live with the British system, though, if this is such a problem for you, as it is even worse in that regard.
Member states, indeed, Comissioners are generally put in place by the leaders of the member states, the Council. (I should stop arguing this point, the technicality is not really relevant, it's that they are several steps removed from any vote)
Where did I say I can live with the British system?
It reeks worse than the EU. I'll vote out of Westminster when I get the chance (which will never come for Hampshire, I'm not a fantasist)
The point is that powers of veto are less influential than powers of creating policy.
I don't think people are saying that the EU is completely undemocratic (as pointed out above, democracy is a somewhat muddy concept in practice), more that it falls short of the standards of a typical democracy (which to me means a directly elected executive body).
> The point is that powers of veto are less influential than powers of creating policy.
Can you explain what you are talking about? Because I honestly have no idea.
> democracy (which to me means a directly elected executive body).
Which happens pretty much nowhere in the world. Even in the US, only the President is directly elected, not the rest of the cabinet. In the UK, Germany, Spain, the executive is not directly elected.
And in actual practice, the Commission President is the result of the elections to the European Parliament, with each party nominating a candidate and the candidate of the winning party getting the job.
On the first point I mean that the policy creators (in this case the Commission) can make any policy of their choosing. The veto-ers (i.e. the European Parliament) can only block the legislation. As the former control what gets debated, they frame the debate and the latter can only react.
On the second point; you may in a narrow technical sense be correct. Taking the Uk as an example, the UK Cabinet is literally appointed by the PM. However the wider point is that the executive power of the PM and the ruling party is granted by winning an election based on a manifesto etc. The PM and cabinet members are also individually elected to their seats.
In contrast, the Commission is more akin to the Civil Service.
On your final point, that's a far cry from being elected by a voting public. Also I presume there are restrictions on who can stand for Commission President?
> On the first point I mean that the policy creators (in this case the Commission) can make any policy of their choosing. The veto-ers (i.e. the European Parliament) can only block the legislation. As the former control what gets debated, they frame the debate and the latter can only react.
The Parliament and Council do not just have veto power. The Parliament can in principle replace legislation entirely through amendments. (In practice, this does not happen, because the Commission isn't going to waste time on writing legislation where the Parliament would do just that.)
> However the wider point is that the executive power of the PM and the ruling party is granted by winning an election based on a manifesto etc. The PM and cabinet members are also individually elected to their seats.
The former part is also the case in the EU [1]. The latter is not universal among democracies (none of Trump's cabinet members was elected) and is not even always true in the UK, as members of the Lords are also eligible for cabinet positions. And in fact, the Leader of the House of Lords, which is a cabinet position, still always comes from the Lords.
Ok amendments as well as veto, but I think you see the point.
It is rare that a member of the Lords is in the Cabinet and it seems reasonable that the Leader of the Lords is from the Lords doesn't it?
Again the main point I'm trying to make is that the EU falls short of typical democratic standards which is a reasonably direct connection between the ruled and the rulers. Anything in between is highly subject to cronyism IMO.
> It is rare that a member of the Lords is in the Cabinet and it seems reasonable that the Leader of the Lords is from the Lords doesn't it?
I was just fighting literalism with literalism; you and I both know that this isn't what's usually meant when talking about "unelected bureaucrats" (keep also in mind that most prominent MPs are in safe seats where, as the saying goes, you could get a donkey elected on a party ticket). There are plenty of democracies around the world where members of the executive are NOT members of the legislature also and where this is actually discouraged (separation of powers and all that). Members of the executive also being members of the legislature has never been a criterion for a democracy.
> Again the main point I'm trying to make is that the EU falls short of typical democratic standards which is a reasonably direct connection between the ruled and the rulers.
Not sure where you're getting this from. The European Parliament is elected directly by the EU citizens. The Council of the EU comprises members of the governments, which are indirectly elected by EU citizens. The Commission President is chosen as the result of the European Parliament elections (as the candidate of the largest party that can command a majority in the European Parliament). The other Commissioners are proposed by the governments of the member states, again indirectly elected by EU citizens, and are then elected by the European Parliament. The European Parliament can also remove the Commission through a motion of censure (and that's not a paper tiger, it happened before).
If you look at your description all the methods of selection bar one are nothing like methods for publicly elected officials and as such massively subject to cronyism. This is worth a read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Commission#Appointmen...
The one that isn't is the European Parliament which as we've already established is pretty toothless.
On a slight tangent you'll also notice that none of these bodies are s/elected with any commonality of purpose. Hence why IMO the EU struggles to agree on any difficult issues. Just wait and see how much indecision and infighting will occur over Brexit negotiations.
Why on earth would we give up a successfully evolved system of government for this?
> It is rare that a member of the Lords is in the Cabinet
As GP noted, it is always the case that at least one member of the Lords is in the cabinet, so not rare at all.
More broadly, there have typically been 1-2 Lords in cabinet in most governments of the past several decades (not counting the Leader of the Lords and, before 2005, Lord Chancellor, who always are/were cabinet ministers and members of the Lords.) John Major's government and the 2015- Cameron and May governments were notable in not having any "extra" Lords.
Its an indirectly elected chief executive and an appointed cabinet drawn largely from, and confirmed by, parliament, in practice. (In theory, they're all appointed by the monarch, but the traditional constraints on that make it a ministerial rather than discretionary act in practice.)
Leaving aside mid term leadership changes as a different can of worms, I think it's pretty clear that the UK public elected the Tories and David Cameron (and it was fairly obvious who his Cabinet would be even if they are not individually elected) on a fairly specific manifesto and with each MP being individually elected (limitations with FPTP notwithstanding).
No such equivalent exists in the EU no matter how hard you try and twist the facts.
You're right it's unelected but there's much more complexion to it than that:
>Selecting the team
>The president-elect selects potential Vice-Presidents and Commissioners based on suggestions from EU countries. The list of nominees has to be approved by all EU heads of state or government, meeting in the European Council.
>Each nominee must appear before the parliamentary committee with responsibility for his or her proposed portfolio. Committee members then vote on the nominee’s suitability for the position. Once the 27 nominees have been endorsed, Parliament as a whole votes whether or not to approve the entire team. Following Parliament's vote, the Commissioners are appointed by the European Council.
Accountability
>The European Commission is held democratically accountable by the European Parliament, which has the right to approve and dismiss the entire political leadership of the Commission.
>The European Commission is also accountable for putting the EU budget into practice. Every year, the Parliament chooses to give (or not) its blessing to the European Commission on the way it has managed the EU budget. This process is called the discharge. The Parliament bases its decision on several reports from the European Court of Auditors and from the European Commission, including the annual management and performance report for the EU budget.
Parliament has gained a lot of 'de jure' power since Lisbon. With it (and, some argue, a few good moves by the previous President of the EU Parliament) has come a rise in 'de facto' power and visibility.
Entirely left out of your answer is the Council, with heads of state elected by whatever their country deems to be a democratic process. In practice, EU legislation requires agreement between the three institutions.
