3 ms·

> 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 occasion

> 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.
- isostatic 8y ago
  > the major parties entered into an agreement where they'd vote for the candidate backed by whichever party got the most seats That's wrong. The only pre-election statement was that the president should be someone who had campaigned for it. It wasn't until after the election that the parties agreed that EPP should have first shot as the largest party. The S&D for example demanded budget changes for their backing of Juncker, and I believe Parliament presidency, the negotiations continued for some time before they agreed to back him. If you want to talk about democratic deficit, In the UK in 2005 the Labour and Cooperative parties got a combined 35% of the vote - barely more than the EPP in 2014 - but they got 100% of the power.

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.

isostatic 8y ago
> the major parties entered into an agreement where they'd vote for the candidate backed by whichever party got the most seats That's wrong. The only pre-election statement was that the president should be someone who had campaigned for it. It wasn't until after the election that the parties agreed that EPP should have first shot as the largest party. The S&D for example demanded budget changes for their backing of Juncker, and I believe Parliament presidency, the negotiations continued for some time before they agreed to back him. If you want to talk about democratic deficit, In the UK in 2005 the Labour and Cooperative parties got a combined 35% of the vote - barely more than the EPP in 2014 - but they got 100% of the power.