Well, yes. But the only way you could get to vote for the members of the European Commission (from which the President of the Commission is, of course, drawn) is if the governments of the member states gave up their right to nominate them.
A “more democratic EU”, in other words, bypasses national governments and reduces their power and influence. And would be pretty much the opposite of what I think most of the British critics of the EU would want.
That’s precisely it. A more democratic, federal Europe or a less democratic Europe of Nation States. Choose one or the other.
Also, Novelty, the EU made it plain years ago that the convention would be that the majority of the European Parliament after the elections would choose the Commission. So, a majority EPP (the rightists) Parliament (as it turned out) chose Junker. It’s pretty much akin to the majority of the House of Commons choosing the Prime Minister by convention.
However in the UK, the Conservatives walked out of the EPP, meaning that Junker had no party advocating his candidacy here when the elections took place. But as the elections are a matter for the Member States, not the Commission, they can’t be blamed for that.
I disagree. What would be the problem in nominating the various people for the commission positions and then putting it to a public vote? Even the EPP suggest this for the president, why not for the commission as a whole?
I think that people want a more direct say in who rules them. The current set-up is a bureaucratic mash-up designed to preserve the status quo and dilute the democratic process. The commission is yet another step removed from the oversight of the public and as such leaves itself open to accusations of back-room deals and corruption.
Seeing as EU laws bypass the UK government and reduces its power and influence I’d suggest it is critical that the people get to vote on their leaders. Transparency is required. I think Tony Benn’s quote is as good as any on this subject.
I think the current EU system fails in many aspects.
We could, but that’s not really something other democracies do, so now it’s not a matter of the EU being undemocratic compared to, say, the average European country, and is now going several steps beyond. The UK electorate does not elect the Cabinet as a whole; indeed a newly elected Prime Minister can and does entirely rejig his team, and routinely reshuffle it without recourse to Parliament or the electorate.
I can entirely agree that the EU is both baffling and not very good at being open. But I must take issue with the claim the UK is ‘bypassed’. It’s consulted every step of the way, and the Council as a practice tries to seek the maximum possible consensus through negotiations and tradeoff. It’s this negotiation (akin to an international summit than a legislature) that can be quite secretive. And in the UK, the government must seek the consent of both Houses of Parliament before it can abstain or vote in favour of something.
We’ve also got the European Parliament, which is directly elected and extremely powerful. Not only can it stop any law the Commission proposes or the Council adopts, it also has the right to block and overthrow the Commission as a body, which it has done in the past. And yet despite these powers, and the potential of the Parliament to secure a lot of reform of the EU, hardly anybody bothers to vote for it. Why?
I don’t think anyone’s suggesting the EU is a flawless institution, but nearly all the criticisms I hear about it fail the fallacy of ‘let he who is without sin cast the first stone’.
False choice, and the false choice of pro-superstate scaremongers everywhere. Each nation state can be fully democratic and accountable and hold supremacy over EU law. A less powerful EU would not be an entity wielding huge executive power so that ceases to be so much of an issue. We go back to free trade and movement. Problem solved. We also get to cut back on the machinery of state and the associated gravy-train.
The future of the EU doesn’t have to sit in either of your choices above. It can be something very different, to fail to consider the other options is blinkered.
He is unelected by the people, he carries no mandate. Try imagining the majority of the house choosing an unelected person as the head of their executive. Outside of wartime how well do you think that’ll fly?
The EPP did not have a “majority” in the European elections, they had 29.4%. They were the biggest party but not an overwhelming popular choice.
If the EPP have no affiliated parties in the UK and cannot gather enough votes to even appear as a blip on the results and yet they still get to choose an unelected leader carrying executive power over us then certainly this is a problem for the EPP and seems a clear democratic deficit to me…it is not surprising that the UK sees this as a problem. Those in charge in the EU are not seen as in any way representative of the UK will, nor do many see them as working for our benefit.
This is precisely the same complaint that lead to devolution of powers to Scotland and, very nearly, a full spilt into separate nationhood.
If people feel disenfranchised from the ruling powers then don’t be surprised when they want out.
This is the type of fearmongering im talking about. There are many reasons Europe has had relative peace these last 70 years, one of which may be the EU. It is worth noting that current difficulties in the EU have lead to a distinct rise in tensions between nations these past few years. These tensions are not war, but they are a worrying consequence of the EU project.
True, I rather suspect that the bigger reason for continued peace was a realisation that technology had advanced to a point where instant destruction and industrial genocide were not only possible but probable. You could no longer have a limited war with a technologically equal neighbour.
Formalising that realisation is where the EU comes in.
I am not a pro-superstate ‘scaremonger’. I don’t want a European superstate one iota, and for you to claim I am suggests you are another poor stereotype I can think of.
You state this, but you don’t exactly say how. Given what the EU is, and that it by its nature has considerable executive power separate form and alongside Member States, could you suggest a model that makes it ‘fully democratic’ (a subject term anyway) that doesn’t entirely undermine the EU’s foundation treaties?
If you object to the EU being a supranational organisation, and would rather it be nothing more than a free trade zone, please feel free to state so.
I haven’t seen other models proposed. People complain and criticise, but when pressed to propose solutions, they mumble and hum. Propose a model for the EU that gives the population complete democratic power while at the same time ensuring Member State governments, accountable to their domestic populations, also have power. To fail to propose an alternative is blinkered.
Who? David Cameron?
It’s not unlike the US electoral college, except without the block-by-State voting.
Therefore they had to get the agreement of other parties, which ended up endorsing Junker, their candidate. I fail to see what’s undemocratic about that. If people didn’t want Junker, they could have voted for another party, if they’d bothered to inform themselves, that is.
This is circular. People dislike how powerful the EU has become against their own national governments, so claim they want the EU to be more democratic, ignoring what’s already available to them and ignoring that making the EU more democratic risks further weakening their national governments.
The problem with the EU first and foremost is the lack of European demos - people simply don’t feel European, and so don’t feel enthused enough to vote on European affairs, or only look at it through the lens of national politics. I am sceptical that the demos can ever be realised, and my appreciation of that makes me consider it possibly valid that we should withdraw. But I don’t want to advocate that unless someone can demonstrate a smattering of actual knowledge of how international organisations, and international democracy can work.
If I was aiming that at you, I’d be clear about it. What is clear is that you are using the same type of silly “excluded middle” argument that the scaremongers from both sides use and it isn’t a sensible line of argument to take.
I’m not a politician nor a scholar of European Politics. It isn’t my responsibility to design the new structure. Just as I don’t need to be a Michelin-starred chef to tell you my soup is too salty and the halibut is off.
By saying this you are assuming that foundation treaties cannot and should not be challenged or changed And did I ask for it to be “fully democratic”? (or even define what that means). No. I think if we cannot change it more fundamentally and are stuck with what we have then at the very least it should be more democratic than it is. I already mentioned upthread that direct election of the commission members would be one way.
There you go with a pointless either/or again.
Would you not agree that at some point in the past it was more than just a free trade zone, and yet less of a supranational/quasi-federal organisation than it is now? So pick any point along that continuum as a potential model that we could row back to.
This is exactly what I mean by blinkered thinking. You are assuming that there has to be an EU structure in it’s current form.
He is a directly elected member of parliament first and foremost, accountable to his constituency and the transparently obvious leader of the potential executive. He is one step removed from the population in general and can be got rid of if/when he fucks up. He is directly elected by the people with a mandate to choose his executive.
Which other party could the UK have voted for that would mean Junker didn’t get in?
So you are admitting that the EU could be made more democratic?
I agree with pretty much everything you say here. But the trouble is we’ve got a sample of one to work with. We don’t know that the EU can ever truly work. It doesn’t seem to be making a good job of it at the moment. We’ve never been in this position before but those driven by the EU as an idealogical concept see every challenge and bump in the road as an argument for greater integration. They have no idea whether that is right or not, they were a country mile out on the fudged concept of a single currency so no reason to think that they are any more correct now. There is no single “correct” answer to this. No single perfect model that will work and the time is absolutely ripe to re-think where we are and remodel what we have.
Again, they are. Your prime minister is one of the mysterious “leaders” as member of the council. He has a say in whom will head the commission. If you want to know who he’s supporting, I don’t know…ask him? Then, your elected EU MPs will vote on this. Again, if you want to know who your party of choice is supporting, ask them.
If you’re unhappy with your Prime Minister choice, or your MP choice, then vote for another party in UK general election for the PM or EU elections for the MP.
The problem is that like mostly everybody, you’re wholly uninformed about it, not that the information isn’t out there. And that you’re unlikely to vote for another party in the UK because you’re unhappy with your PM/party European policies.
So, you have no direct say in who will become prime minister unless you’re living in this constituency (which is a 100% safe one). Not sure how it’s different.
.
And you could know who would head the commission depending on how the votes for the parliament would go. It wasn’t a secret, it was printed in newspapers, as I already mentioned. Not anybody’s fault if you weren’t informed about this.
You do. EU “leaders” don’t magically appear out of nowwhere. Anybody who wants to know who will be the “leaders”, what kind of policies they advocate, and whom parties represented in the EU parliament are supporting can know. It’s just that it’s not widely reported and almost nobody has an interest in finding out before voting.
The EU is democratic. But the people don’t have the slighest interest in this democratic process.
What proportion of the current UK cabinet are directly elected MP’s from the 2010 general election?
What proportion of the European Commission Members are directly elected MEP’s from the 2014 elections?
I don’t know the answer but I could hazard a guess. That is the part of the EU that most egregiously fails the “Tony Benn” test
Because it’s a tradition in the UK for cabinet members to be elected MPs doesn’t mean that a different system is undemocratic. American cabinet members aren’t elected MPs. French cabinet members constitutionally can’t be elected MPs.
The UK system isn’t the the ultimate reference in matter of democracy. For instance, the European Union doesn’t have a queen, either.
If the names of the people on the governmental executive body don’t appear on a ballot paper that I can tick, I don’t consider it democratic.
If my country can vote overwhelmingly in one way and yet that makes not one jot of difference in the way we are governed, then I don’t consider it democratic.
That’s why there is great disillusionment with the EU process in the UK. We are a small fish who can’t make a difference and so why bother?
But it is for the UK citizens. That is my point. The alien, tiered mish-mash of the EU commission seems distant and unaccountable and impervious to any concerns the UK may have. I, and many others in the UK perceive no benefit from it. That’s why we have the rumblings about leaving. The political systems of the EU in general is alien to us.
As has been made clear on many occasions we are probably the least European of the European nations and I think there is a natural resistance from the UK towards becoming a bit-player in a larger Europe.
And the queen is a red herring. She has no executive power. No power of any kind other than that granted to her by the people. She persists at our whim and can be removed by popular demand within the UK. something which can’t be said for the head of the EU.
Ah, but saying it’s too salty is specific: the answer is to reduce the salt. Saying ‘it’s not sufficiently democratic’ is akin to saying ‘this is not the meal I asked for’ but never saying what’s wrong with it.
My point is that the ‘powers’ of the EU vis-a-vis Member States is a matter separate from its democratic nature. Just because it, say, went back to only operating on the basis of the Single European Act, or even earlier, would not make it more democratic; just less powerful.
Therefore, rolling back the powers of the EU (which I don’t disagree with) wouldn’t address your point.
Secondly, and just as importantly, it seems to me that many talking heads in the eurosceptic crowd aren’t terribly interested in ‘rolling back’ the EU; they simply want done with it. They object to it being anything more than a free trade zone in its entirety.
Believe me, I would support a reform of the powers of the EU, but it doesn’t appear to be a proposal that’s seriously considered by either side!
Labour were supporting the Socialists candidate. And I understand the ELDR had a candidate too.
Of course it could. But I think doing so could strengthen the energies of the federalisers and directly imperil the interests of those who dislike how big the EU has become. This is a bit post hoc ergo procter hoc, but I have always found it interesting how the big waves of integration from the 1980s on followed after the direct elections of the European Parliament were enacted.
Fair enough, but this isn’t something the EU can dictate, as it’s a Member States matter. You can see the headlines now, can’t you? Now Brussels bureaucrats want to control our elections! The next step in the federalist conspiracy - having European Commissioners directly elected!
See, this at least is a reasonable observation. Yes, the EU is a horridly clunky institution. I can get behind that entirely. I wish there was some sensible analysis of its costs and benefits for the UK. But instead we obsess with this dead-end on its democratic deficit. If that’s what concerns you, that’s your problem, and I guess that means you’ll end up advocating we leave. I don’t see it as a problem as it’s one that cannot be resolved satisfactorily to the satisfaction of both National interests and those of the people that continue to allow the EU to function on the basis of the very first treaties in the 1950s.
That sounds very much in line with what **Malden Campbell **actually said.
Then, to misquote you “If the names of the head of state doesn’t appear on a ballot paper that I can tick, I don’t consider it democratic.”
If you decide that a system where the cabinet members aren’t MPs can’t be democratic, I certainly can decide that a system where the head of state is an hereditary monarch can’t be democratic, either. If the USA and France aren’t democratic, then fine, but your definition of “democracy” is quite narrow.
And if you didn’t want Juncker, you just had to vote for a British party that didn’t support him during the EU elections, or you could vote for an UK prime minister who wouldn’t support him during the UK elections. If you didn’t care enough to do that, I’m not sure why you would complain now. It isn’t that the process wasn’t democratic, it’s that you weren’t interested in the issue. Or at least not enough to vote accordingly.
Also, if we’re judging based on ministers that aren’t MPs, it’s not entirely out of the ordinary for senior government ministers in the UK to sit in the House of Lords.
If the queen held the same level of power as the heads of the EU then I’d agree with you. She doesn’t. She is a puppet. A regimental goat. Aesthetically pleasing but ultimately disposable. As such I’m not bothered how she is selected as her being in that position affects my life not one jot.
However, I prefer the members of an executive that create my laws to be directly accountable to the people who elect them. I’m not making a right/wrong statement here regarding other systems, merely an insight into my preference and if my wider conversations are anything to go by, a preference of many in the UK.
I know how Britain could have voted to choose a certain Prime Minister, I don’t see how we could have voted to change the appointment of Junker. Wouldn’t we have been outvoted by all the other European votes anyway?
Believe me, I read the manifesto of the EPP prior to the election. Utter wooly tosh. It made no specific claims only generalisations and gave no solid roadmap on how to get there anyway. It was a solid case of saying lots to say nothing. Not that any of the other main groups were any better. And therein lies the problem.
They can’t be specific. The nature of the edifice does not allow or prompt them to be free thinking and revolutionary.
The countries and cultures and priorities are so diverse, so diametrically opposed in some cases, that there is no room for any main party to be the one to rock the boat without shitting in someone’s nest. Hence we get plodding predictability to a predetermined and unquestioned end point. Those who suggest a rethink are branded “Eurosceptic” as a pejorative and lumped into the in/out brigade as an easy way of dismissing their input.
Very frustrating.
Novelty, again, all sound observations. I think we disagree on the solution though. The EPP’s woolly manifesto can’t, and won’t, be addressed by making the EU more democratic (say by directly electing commissioners), as it’s a direct consequence of trying to be an umbrella organisation for a whole raft of rightwing parties in [strike]27[/strike] 26 countries representing millions of people. That will always be the case. Again, the problem is the demos, and no amount of further strengthening of the EU’s democratic aspects will change that.
Given the European Parliament is already equal with the Council in powers and can sack the Commission and block budgets, it’s got practically the same powers in the organisation as the House of Commons, bar legislative initiative.