3 ms·

It might be illuminating to talk about what it meant for Juncker to receive the most votes in 2014. First up, there are no EU-wide political parties, just shift

by makomk 8y ago

It might be illuminating to talk about what it meant for Juncker to receive the most votes in 2014. First up, there are no EU-wide political parties, just shifting alliances of local national parties, none of which have more than 30% of the MEPs. For the 2014 elections, they came to a deal where the alliance with the most MEPs got their choice as President of the European Commission. (Which is not how it's supposed to work, but let's put that aside for a moment.) Now, pretty much no-one voted for MEPs based on which alliance they were part of - they voted based on party, because it's the parties that decide what platform their MEPs are running on and that are the ballot. Not only that, which alliance was bigger was pretty arbitrary and depended almost entirely on how the backroom deals between the various parties had gone. Oh, and there's some justified suspicion that this was all specifically set up to get Juncker in: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/27/eu-democratic-bandwagon-juncker-president-wanted https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/27/eu-democratic-... (He then rewarded one of the guys who helped him manage this with an extremely shady permanent appointment as the head of the EU civil service.) This is very different from the UK system, where each party and its leader agrees on their platform for the next election, publishes it as a manifesto, and runs collectively on the promise of enacting those policies if they win. Partly because, unlike the UK Prime Minister, the European Commission isn't meant to represent the people at all - it's meant to represent the EU's interests as an institution.

toyg 8y ago
> This is very different from the UK system The Westminster system works only because First-past-the-post can effectively disenfranchise 2/3rd of the electorate, dramatically reducing the variables of parliamentary arithmetics. When that doesn't work, the system crumbles. And this is precisely what we have seen in two of the last three UK elections, with hung parliaments: alliances were built in the Commons that have little or no connection to manifests and the likes. The EU Parliament is infinitely more representative of the population - which is why, for example, the UK could send several MEPs from UKIP, who have failed to enter the British Parliament for 20 years. > there are no EU-wide political parties, just shifting alliances of local national parties That's just not true. The two main groups are very stable alliances of the postwar socialdemocratic and conservative parties. Only small parties "shift", and that's just a recent development due to a rise of populistic parties that reject the traditional left/right setup. (They are also forced to aggregate for administrative reasons depending on their size). > Now, pretty much no-one voted for MEPs based on which alliance they were part of Nice baseless generalization there, that's definitely not the case. In countries that take MEPs seriously, there are big discussions on where each party will "sit", so to speak. In many cases it reveals where the real insticts of a new party really lie. The Guardian piece you link is particularly interesting. It's permeated by a conviction that national governments, rather than MEPs, should "run things" around Bruxelles, and when it doesn't haeppens it's some sort of stitch-up. It's a very anti-democratic view, but it suits the UK discourse that the EU is "unrepresentative" when the UK is a minority on a give subject - and it reflects an authoritarian view of government, typical of post-Blair Britain. > He then rewarded one of the guys who helped him manage this with an extremely shady permanent appointment Yep, this was a scandal. The EP censored Juncker, and the situation did not escalate only because he's on his way out anyway. Hopefully the new Commission President will fire Selmayr. We'll see.
isostatic 8y ago
> This is very different from the UK system, where each party and its leader agrees on their platform for the next election, publishes it as a manifesto, and runs collectively on the promise of enacting those policies if they win. Not what Tory MPs say. They say things like > Neither Cabinet, MPs nor Party Policy Forum ever saw or debated it. It was roundly rejected > and widely agreed to have cost us our majority, leaving the mandate in Parliament, not the > Party. (As I wrote in @Telegraph the morning after). Lost majority=Lost mandate.

by makomk 8y ago

toyg 8y ago

> This is very different from the UK system The Westminster system works only because First-past-the-post can effectively disenfranchise 2/3rd of the electorate, dramatically reducing the variables of parliamentary arithmetics. When that doesn't work, the system crumbles. And this is precisely what we have seen in two of the last three UK elections, with hung parliaments: alliances were built in the Commons that have little or no connection to manifests and the likes. The EU Parliament is infinitely more representative of the population - which is why, for example, the UK could send several MEPs from UKIP, who have failed to enter the British Parliament for 20 years. > there are no EU-wide political parties, just shifting alliances of local national parties That's just not true. The two main groups are very stable alliances of the postwar socialdemocratic and conservative parties. Only small parties "shift", and that's just a recent development due to a rise of populistic parties that reject the traditional left/right setup. (They are also forced to aggregate for administrative reasons depending on their size). > Now, pretty much no-one voted for MEPs based on which alliance they were part of Nice baseless generalization there, that's definitely not the case. In countries that take MEPs seriously, there are big discussions on where each party will "sit", so to speak. In many cases it reveals where the real insticts of a new party really lie. The Guardian piece you link is particularly interesting. It's permeated by a conviction that national governments, rather than MEPs, should "run things" around Bruxelles, and when it doesn't haeppens it's some sort of stitch-up. It's a very anti-democratic view, but it suits the UK discourse that the EU is "unrepresentative" when the UK is a minority on a give subject - and it reflects an authoritarian view of government, typical of post-Blair Britain. > He then rewarded one of the guys who helped him manage this with an extremely shady permanent appointment Yep, this was a scandal. The EP censored Juncker, and the situation did not escalate only because he's on his way out anyway. Hopefully the new Commission President will fire Selmayr. We'll see.

isostatic 8y ago

> This is very different from the UK system, where each party and its leader agrees on their platform for the next election, publishes it as a manifesto, and runs collectively on the promise of enacting those policies if they win. Not what Tory MPs say. They say things like > Neither Cabinet, MPs nor Party Policy Forum ever saw or debated it. It was roundly rejected > and widely agreed to have cost us our majority, leaving the mandate in Parliament, not the > Party. (As I wrote in @Telegraph the morning after). Lost majority=Lost mandate.