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.
