5 ms·

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

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.

Angostura 10y ago
Odd isn't it. In the UK, people are so apathetic about the EU that they won't bother voting and so exercised by the EU that they want to leave.
- pluma 10y ago
  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.
- presidente20 10y ago
  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?
  - ben_w 10y ago
    UKIP MEPs rather famously don't bother to vote in the EP as much as other MEPs.
    - presidente20 10y ago
      Fair point but do you think it would make any difference?
      - ben_w 10y ago
        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.
        presidente20 10y ago
        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 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.
        ben_w 10y ago
        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.
        presidente20 10y ago
        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.
- rleigh 10y ago
  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.
waqf 10y ago
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.
matt4077 10y ago
Apathy is indeed a problem, and the EU would obviously love higher turnout. Using it as an argument against the EU is kinda circular, though. Only people who show up should et to complain.
pluma 10y ago
As I understand it you're saying "the EU is undemocratic because we don't want to participate in its most direct democratic process". Do I need to point out why that argument is flawed?
- presidente20 10y ago
  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_the_executive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament#Control_of...
  - pluma 10y ago
    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).
    - waqf 10y ago
      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?

Angostura 10y ago

Odd isn't it. In the UK, people are so apathetic about the EU that they won't bother voting and so exercised by the EU that they want to leave.

pluma 10y ago
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.
presidente20 10y ago
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?
- ben_w 10y ago
  UKIP MEPs rather famously don't bother to vote in the EP as much as other MEPs.
  - presidente20 10y ago
    Fair point but do you think it would make any difference?
    - ben_w 10y ago
      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.
      - presidente20 10y ago
        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 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.
        ben_w 10y ago
        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.
        presidente20 10y ago
        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.
rleigh 10y ago
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.

waqf 10y ago

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.

matt4077 10y ago

Apathy is indeed a problem, and the EU would obviously love higher turnout. Using it as an argument against the EU is kinda circular, though. Only people who show up should et to complain.

pluma 10y ago

As I understand it you're saying "the EU is undemocratic because we don't want to participate in its most direct democratic process". Do I need to point out why that argument is flawed?

presidente20 10y ago
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_the_executive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament#Control_of...
- pluma 10y ago
  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).
  - waqf 10y ago
    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?