5 ms·

> They're also the only institution with the power to propose new EU laws Same as the UK. While in theory backbenchers can propose new laws, in reality Christo

> They're also the only institution with the power to propose new EU laws Same as the UK. While in theory backbenchers can propose new laws, in reality Christopher Chope exists. > and there's essentially nothing we, as ordinary citizens, can do to replace the current members with people who might actually care about our interests The commission president stood as the candidate for the largest grouping in 2014. Personally I'd have preferred it if ALDE and Guy Verhofstadt had received the most support, but EPP did, and our MEPs duely voted Juncker in. Just like the UK MPs voted in May as PM, or the U.S. electoral college voted in Trump. That's pretty transparent. The rest of the commissioners are appointed in the exact same way that the U.S. executive is appointed - on the whim of the President. The difference is that the U.S. president gets to choose from an unlimited pool, but the EU president has to choose from a pool appointed by national PMs. MEPs can block those appointments, just like the U.S. senate can block appointments. Parliament can also kick out the commission, that's no more or less democratic than the UK system where MPs can kick out the government. If we don't like the commission, then we as ordinary citizens, need to vote for someone other than the EPP, or persuade our MEPs to censure them. Even Nigel Farage said "One of the few things the European Parliament can do is to hold the European Commission to account for its actions".

makomk 8y ago
No, it really isn't the same as the UK. For a start, the ability for backbenchers to propose laws isn't merely theoretical - they actually do it, and occasionally some of them become laws. This isn't possible even in theory in the EU. Also, our ministers are all elected politicians who can be voted out, and they have to defend their proposed laws on the record in the Commons just like the lowliest backbencher. > The commission president stood as the candidate for the largest grouping in 2014. Personally I'd have preferred it if ALDE and Guy Verhofstadt had received the most support, but EPP did, and our MEPs duely voted Juncker in. Just like the UK MPs voted in May as PM, or the U.S. electoral college voted in Trump. That's pretty transparent. The largest grouping in 2014, the EPP, had a mere 29% of the seats. The US electoral college can only select a president if a majority of the electors support him, and the same is more or less true of UK prime ministers. Also, MEPs aren't elected based on which candidate they support or even which political grouping they're a member of: they're elected based on which local political party they're part of. This all makes the selection process pretty arbitrary in practice, with the main thing influencing it being how exactly the actual political parties have allied themselves into factions this time around.
- isostatic 8y ago
  > No, it really isn't the same as the UK. For a start, the ability for backbenchers to propose laws isn't merely theoretical - they actually do it, and occasionally some of them become laws. https://uk.news.yahoo.com/christopher-chope-wrong-object-fgm-181056300.html https://uk.news.yahoo.com/christopher-chope-wrong-object-fgm... In practice backbenchers can't get laws past because of MPs like Chope. > Also, our ministers are all elected politicians who can be voted out Not by me, my MP is a backbench tory who's never been in government. Other people can vote ministers out - which has pros and cons. The U.S., which tends to be accepted as a "democracy", does not have the ability for the general population to boot out "ministers". In 2017, 25 out of the total 118 (21%) ministers in the UK government were in the House of Lords in any case. > The US electoral college can only select a president if a majority of the electors support him And the EU MEPs can only select an EU commission president if a majority of the electors support him. And that's exactly what happened in 2014, when about 56% of MEPs backed him. This is similar to the UK in 2010, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2017 when the Queen's Speech was passed by MPs of more than one party. In fact in the last 10 years it's only been 2009 and 2016 where the speech was passed by a single party.
  - makomk 8y ago
    You know why 56% of MEPs voted for him, right? It wasn't because they necessarily supported him - before the elections, the major parties entered into an agreement where they'd vote for the candidate backed by whichever party got the most seats from now on and only that person, essentially meaning that party's candidate was guaranteed the job despite having a minority of less than 30%. Again, this is nothing like how coalitions work in the UK and other democratic countries. The Prime Minister has to convince her coalition partners that her government is worth their support, generally by bringing its policies more in line with what their voters care about and giving them roles in government. As far as I know, we've never had a deal like this where two minority parties each agree to help the other gain power just for the reward of getting the same help themselves next time, wiping out the influence of all the smaller parties in the process. The closest I've seen to this is the (failed) attempts to turn the US presidency into a popular vote by committing a majority of electors into choosing whoever wins the popular vote, though the EU shenanigans are even more of a shady end-run around the intended process than that.

makomk 8y ago

No, it really isn't the same as the UK. For a start, the ability for backbenchers to propose laws isn't merely theoretical - they actually do it, and occasionally some of them become laws. This isn't possible even in theory in the EU. Also, our ministers are all elected politicians who can be voted out, and they have to defend their proposed laws on the record in the Commons just like the lowliest backbencher. > The commission president stood as the candidate for the largest grouping in 2014. Personally I'd have preferred it if ALDE and Guy Verhofstadt had received the most support, but EPP did, and our MEPs duely voted Juncker in. Just like the UK MPs voted in May as PM, or the U.S. electoral college voted in Trump. That's pretty transparent. The largest grouping in 2014, the EPP, had a mere 29% of the seats. The US electoral college can only select a president if a majority of the electors support him, and the same is more or less true of UK prime ministers. Also, MEPs aren't elected based on which candidate they support or even which political grouping they're a member of: they're elected based on which local political party they're part of. This all makes the selection process pretty arbitrary in practice, with the main thing influencing it being how exactly the actual political parties have allied themselves into factions this time around.

isostatic 8y ago
> No, it really isn't the same as the UK. For a start, the ability for backbenchers to propose laws isn't merely theoretical - they actually do it, and occasionally some of them become laws. https://uk.news.yahoo.com/christopher-chope-wrong-object-fgm-181056300.html https://uk.news.yahoo.com/christopher-chope-wrong-object-fgm... In practice backbenchers can't get laws past because of MPs like Chope. > Also, our ministers are all elected politicians who can be voted out Not by me, my MP is a backbench tory who's never been in government. Other people can vote ministers out - which has pros and cons. The U.S., which tends to be accepted as a "democracy", does not have the ability for the general population to boot out "ministers". In 2017, 25 out of the total 118 (21%) ministers in the UK government were in the House of Lords in any case. > The US electoral college can only select a president if a majority of the electors support him And the EU MEPs can only select an EU commission president if a majority of the electors support him. And that's exactly what happened in 2014, when about 56% of MEPs backed him. This is similar to the UK in 2010, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2017 when the Queen's Speech was passed by MPs of more than one party. In fact in the last 10 years it's only been 2009 and 2016 where the speech was passed by a single party.
- makomk 8y ago
  You know why 56% of MEPs voted for him, right? It wasn't because they necessarily supported him - before the elections, the major parties entered into an agreement where they'd vote for the candidate backed by whichever party got the most seats from now on and only that person, essentially meaning that party's candidate was guaranteed the job despite having a minority of less than 30%. Again, this is nothing like how coalitions work in the UK and other democratic countries. The Prime Minister has to convince her coalition partners that her government is worth their support, generally by bringing its policies more in line with what their voters care about and giving them roles in government. As far as I know, we've never had a deal like this where two minority parties each agree to help the other gain power just for the reward of getting the same help themselves next time, wiping out the influence of all the smaller parties in the process. The closest I've seen to this is the (failed) attempts to turn the US presidency into a popular vote by committing a majority of electors into choosing whoever wins the popular vote, though the EU shenanigans are even more of a shady end-run around the intended process than that.