5 ms·

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 Parliame

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?

rbehrends 10y ago
> 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. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_European_Commission#Spitzenkandidaten https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_European_Comm...
- presidente20 10y ago
  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.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > 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.
    - presidente20 10y ago
      Ok you're right, I meant aside from the Leader of the Lords. Nevertheless, having one or two Lords in the Cabinet out of 22 hardly invalidates my original point that it's an elected (by the people) executive.
      - dragonwriter 10y ago
        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.)
        presidente20 10y ago
        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.

rbehrends 10y ago

> 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. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_European_Commission#Spitzenkandidaten https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_European_Comm...

presidente20 10y ago
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.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > 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.
  - presidente20 10y ago
    Ok you're right, I meant aside from the Leader of the Lords. Nevertheless, having one or two Lords in the Cabinet out of 22 hardly invalidates my original point that it's an elected (by the people) executive.
    - dragonwriter 10y ago
      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.)
      - presidente20 10y ago
        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.