4 ms·

"That she is on the position is testament to the democratic dysfunction of the Union." ??? That she has her position is the most glaring evidence of 'democrat

by jariel 6y ago

"That she is on the position is testament to the democratic dysfunction of the Union." ??? That she has her position is the most glaring evidence of 'democratic dysfunction'. Nobody voted for her, she was unknown before the election. The very few people that voted in the EU elected voted for something else, after the election 'the true powers' decided to push the ostensible candidate aside, and behind closed doors without input from elected MEPs, Von der Leyen was chosen from relative obscurity (at least outside of Germany) - foisted on top to 500 Million electors, almost none of whom have ever even heard of her. She was not vetted, she did no debates, there was no public coverage, there were no speeches, there was no published platform, there was no campaign agenda. Just: "Here is your new leader, that you have never heard of , that you have just elected". This is not democracy. So perhaps if there were more transparency, or even some of it, you would have been able to vet her, and actually vote for or against her.

KingOfCoders 6y ago
The president of the comission is basically a civil service job.
- jariel 6y ago
  I get what you mean, but it's a civil service with constitutional powers :). And it's designed to 'one day' be 'Presidential'. Von der Leyen, in her first speech talked about her want to create the 'United States of Europe'. Not only does this hint at the Presidential nature of the role, but also points out the problematic issue with 'lack of democracy' in that voters were told after the election that their leader has a plan for 'existential transformation'. This is not what a bureaucrat does. As a funny example: imagine waking up in Nov. 2016 and being told that the 'US state delegates' had not actually decided to go with 'Mitt Romney', the official candidate, but they 'changed their minds' and went with some 'outsider' from New York named 'Donald Trump'. All of that said - the EU is actually more thoughtful about tech legislation than the US gov for sure - that said, the EU is for the most part making rules that ostensibly 'protect' them from outside parties, it would be a different story if MS, FB and G were HQ'd in London, Antwerp and Lisbon.
  - KingOfCoders 6y ago
    When 'one day' it's presedential it will be voted for by the European parliament. This is what 'United States of Europe' means. The EU has been on a course to more democracy and more power for the parliament (e.g. Treaty of Lisbon), so I'm not sure why people assume this stops, argue that it is not happening or argue that it is reversing - when it is not - e.g. see GDPR.
    - jariel 6y ago
      This is essentially not true and misunderstanding of why the EU exists in the first place. "When 'one day' it's presedential it will be voted for by the European parliament." And who will propose and design the legislation? The Executive! Definitely not elected MEPs, because they are barred from doing so! MEP's, in 2020 remain forbidden from initiating or enacting legislation. They have the bare minimum power to legitimize the institution as 'democratic'. The EU is the only 'Constitutional Democratic' entity in the modern world wherein legislation is created and controlled at the executive level. You might technically be correct in asserting that the MEPs have 'more power' after the Lisbon treaty, very little has changed, and there is no reason for them to change it. Not until the Treaty of Lisbon were elected MEPs even required to be consulted (!!) for the selection of the executive! Constitutionally they were irrelevant. Only since the Lisbon treaty do MEPs technically have to be consulted, and even then, it's merely 'consultation'. It's not binding. Never in the history of the world has power been given to the people unless they have basically 'forced' it, by using one lever of power or another. The EU is very well designed by the elite to avoid populism and 'interference' by organized or populist plebes. It's the perfect mechanism to have control and enact legislation with minimum of oversight, minimum of media coverage, minimum of procedural problems from the plebes. The elite can argue, but only among themselves. The EU has negative incentive to add more democratic oversight, because in their view, it just adds more problems and risk to the situation - god forbid a 'Donald Trump' should be elected in Europe. The only way voters will get more power is if they take it, either through MEP insurrection, or, one or two state powers have some kind of reason to push for it. I don't think either of these cases is on the table, I can't even imagine a scenario will happen. So if 'the entire history of civilization' is a guide, there will be net less democracy in Europe, as they give very little power to MEPs, and move more powers away from national assemblies towards the EU, where unelected bureaucrats and members of the inner circle can do 'what they think is best'. And there's nothing anyone can do about it. As for GDPR, yes, it was nice that MEPs could put up a fuss and have some parts of legislation changed, but they were not the shepherds of this legislation by any means, it was written and controlled 'from above' at all times. FYI here is the original draft from 2012 [1] [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20121203024154/http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/document/review2012/com_2012_11_en.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20121203024154/http://ec.europa....
ohthehugemanate 6y ago
The thing about the EU is, it's not a democratic government. It's atreaty organization that sometimes takes on responsibilities like a government. This dual identity has been a boon in some political situations in the past, but it is also a serious liability. Von der Leyen got the job in a usual way for a treaty organization, but she is much more political than some technocrat. There are factions that like it each way, and her job is to play both ends against the middle. You don't need a democratic mandate to appoint the head of a civil service. You definitely do when choosing the leader of the (de facto) government! It is increasingly clear that we need a supranational organization in Europe which IS a democratic government. Seems like it would be a natural fit for the EU to be that organization... and it looks like it is headed in that direction. That means it's our role as citizens to push for more democratic behavior at every turn.
- jariel 6y ago
  "It is increasingly clear that we need a supranational organization in Europe which IS a democratic government." I don't think that's clear at all. One could very much make the argument that it doesn't need 'governance' it needs 'coordination' which are very different things. I feel the vast majority of the most important things could be achieved mostly by treaty and that everyone could 'have their cake and eat it' which is to say have fully sovereign states and work together. I think there's quite a lot of a) ideology in the US of Europe b) it's the natural 'power creep' of any institution and c) the business class love to be able to 'skip democracy' and so do the 'socialist' types - both of whom kind of work in a weird kind of tolerance of one another, with I think the business class mostly in charge. In particular, the hugely vague mandates on 'Human Rights' are the biggest coup, though the least obvious. They basically give a 'carte blanche' to the EU courts to rule as they see fit, interpreting some basic, bland text to mean whatever they want it to mean. Since the EU courts often decide on their own jurisdiction ... it results in a huge concentration of legal power. It's a Judicial takeover. Something similar happened in Canada - not exactly on purpose - but when Trudeau Sr. introduced a new Constitution into Canada in the early 1980's - it was a 'nice modern document' but obviously vague. Since then, the Supreme Court of Canada has struck down innumerable old laws, new laws, they do it all the time, they even 'change their minds' on things like terminal care and suicide. Because of the vague wording, 'the world's top legal scholars and lawyers' have no clue what legislation is legal or not, it's just a matter of what our 'Tribal Council of Unelected Elders' decide to do. It's resulted in 'Law by Judicial Fiat' for a wide array of issues - all of the most important ones (identity, rights, marriage, abortion). Canadians, elected officials, politicians, the Prime Minister have little say in the matter ... except for this weird clause someone can effect which basically says a 'law is not bound by the constitution' - which is crazy in of itself. The 'Human Rights' mandates of the EU are controversial for this reason: obviously, they are humane and positive i.e. a 'good thing' - but many people oppose them on the legal problems the effectively create. These people are easily lambasted in the press as 'anti human rights' which is of course completely wrong. Europeans are quite smart, the lack of understanding of these things is really quite bothersome. People just seem to be happy to do whatever the elite tell them to do.
blibble 6y ago
the 2019 election had proper televised political debates amongst the leaders of the euro parties the council then ignored that completely and installed their own choice
addicted 6y ago
That sounds like, parliamentary democracy? I mean, how many regular people voted for Boris Johnson as PM, for example. The answer is exactly 0. That's just how parliamentary democracy works.
- jariel 6y ago
  No it's not 'like a parliamentary democracy' at all - the only 'resemblance' is that that there is some degree of 'representation'. But the similarities end there. You've actually provided a specific example - the most recent UK election, which highlights even further the lack of democracy in the EU, which is a 'confidence' election based on some important or existential issue, in that case, Brexit. + Voters were very well informed that Boris Johnson was to be the PM if a specific party were elected + They were very aware of the general platform of the parties + They were even more aware that the issue at the crux of the election was the type of resolution towards Brexit. + UK elected MPs have tremendous power - demonstrated in that very case: previous to the election, Boris Johnson faced a kind of censure by Parliament several times, MPs of all stripes voting for and against him. + The UK MPs collectively introduced legislation and forced the hand of government on several occasions. + The government was threatened with dissolution on several occasions, over a very important issue. None of this happens in the EU, by design. The EU is not a 'representative democracy' rather, it's a political entity which governs largely unto it's own devices - but in which some actions must have it's actions approved by elected officials.
Joeri 6y ago
Nonsense. Von der leyen was proposed by the council, consisting of representatives from every country, and by extension representative for the voters in every country. She was then confirmed by a majority of the EU parliament, which is directly elected by the citizens. Every EU citizen voted in those elections, or had the opportunity to. So, if only a “very few” voted that is on them. If their elected representatives did things they didn’t like (like confirming von der leyen), that is on them also, in the next parliamentary elections. What you are complaining about is that she was elected by newly elected representatives, but not directly elected by citizens. I find this to be hairsplitting and meaningless in a context of representative democracy.
- kazen44 6y ago
  also, in european politics, direct election of officials rarely happens. (unlike in american politics). People usually vote for parties and the persons within them, not an individual.
  - jariel 6y ago
    This isn't so important though. Canada UK are the same. You don't technically elect a Prime Minister. But - the party, platforms, PM etc are very transparent, and elections are held on that basis. If the Conservative Party of the UK ran with B. Johnson and Brexit, but then after the election decided to make some randome guy from Scotland - that nobody ever heard of - the Prime Minister, and said Scot made a 'Throne Speech' with some completely different agenda ... ...there would be a revoluion. And of course PM has to be someone elected at their riding for good reason. It's simply not good enough to say 'someone voted somewhere' so therefore 'it's democracy and we can do what we want'.
- jariel 6y ago
  Far from 'hairsplitting and meaningless' the issue is at the very crux of 'democracy'. That almost nobody voted in the election, that nobody knew who the leader - or the platform - was going to be, and that she was absolutely chosen after the fact, by unelected leaders, that she cannot be sanctioned or replaced, and that elected MEPs cannot propose legislation - is fundamental to the nature of democracy. Even in proper democracies, particularly in Parliamentary systems, even the budget requires approval without which the government falls and elections are called. Why? Because the proposition of budgets necessitate popular sanction. Parliament - and even legislative assemblies can dissolve government if necessary. Ursula von der Leyen has unambiguously the least democratic legitimacy of any leader in the free world, by far. The fact that the EU was purposefully designed this way - in the very face of very healthy democratic institutions i.e. Switzerland, UK, Germany - implies the lack of democracy was very much 'by design'. It's an existential issue.

by jariel 6y ago

KingOfCoders 6y ago

The president of the comission is basically a civil service job.

jariel 6y ago
I get what you mean, but it's a civil service with constitutional powers :). And it's designed to 'one day' be 'Presidential'. Von der Leyen, in her first speech talked about her want to create the 'United States of Europe'. Not only does this hint at the Presidential nature of the role, but also points out the problematic issue with 'lack of democracy' in that voters were told after the election that their leader has a plan for 'existential transformation'. This is not what a bureaucrat does. As a funny example: imagine waking up in Nov. 2016 and being told that the 'US state delegates' had not actually decided to go with 'Mitt Romney', the official candidate, but they 'changed their minds' and went with some 'outsider' from New York named 'Donald Trump'. All of that said - the EU is actually more thoughtful about tech legislation than the US gov for sure - that said, the EU is for the most part making rules that ostensibly 'protect' them from outside parties, it would be a different story if MS, FB and G were HQ'd in London, Antwerp and Lisbon.
- KingOfCoders 6y ago
  When 'one day' it's presedential it will be voted for by the European parliament. This is what 'United States of Europe' means. The EU has been on a course to more democracy and more power for the parliament (e.g. Treaty of Lisbon), so I'm not sure why people assume this stops, argue that it is not happening or argue that it is reversing - when it is not - e.g. see GDPR.
  - jariel 6y ago
    This is essentially not true and misunderstanding of why the EU exists in the first place. "When 'one day' it's presedential it will be voted for by the European parliament." And who will propose and design the legislation? The Executive! Definitely not elected MEPs, because they are barred from doing so! MEP's, in 2020 remain forbidden from initiating or enacting legislation. They have the bare minimum power to legitimize the institution as 'democratic'. The EU is the only 'Constitutional Democratic' entity in the modern world wherein legislation is created and controlled at the executive level. You might technically be correct in asserting that the MEPs have 'more power' after the Lisbon treaty, very little has changed, and there is no reason for them to change it. Not until the Treaty of Lisbon were elected MEPs even required to be consulted (!!) for the selection of the executive! Constitutionally they were irrelevant. Only since the Lisbon treaty do MEPs technically have to be consulted, and even then, it's merely 'consultation'. It's not binding. Never in the history of the world has power been given to the people unless they have basically 'forced' it, by using one lever of power or another. The EU is very well designed by the elite to avoid populism and 'interference' by organized or populist plebes. It's the perfect mechanism to have control and enact legislation with minimum of oversight, minimum of media coverage, minimum of procedural problems from the plebes. The elite can argue, but only among themselves. The EU has negative incentive to add more democratic oversight, because in their view, it just adds more problems and risk to the situation - god forbid a 'Donald Trump' should be elected in Europe. The only way voters will get more power is if they take it, either through MEP insurrection, or, one or two state powers have some kind of reason to push for it. I don't think either of these cases is on the table, I can't even imagine a scenario will happen. So if 'the entire history of civilization' is a guide, there will be net less democracy in Europe, as they give very little power to MEPs, and move more powers away from national assemblies towards the EU, where unelected bureaucrats and members of the inner circle can do 'what they think is best'. And there's nothing anyone can do about it. As for GDPR, yes, it was nice that MEPs could put up a fuss and have some parts of legislation changed, but they were not the shepherds of this legislation by any means, it was written and controlled 'from above' at all times. FYI here is the original draft from 2012 [1] [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20121203024154/http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/document/review2012/com_2012_11_en.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20121203024154/http://ec.europa....

ohthehugemanate 6y ago

The thing about the EU is, it's not a democratic government. It's atreaty organization that sometimes takes on responsibilities like a government. This dual identity has been a boon in some political situations in the past, but it is also a serious liability. Von der Leyen got the job in a usual way for a treaty organization, but she is much more political than some technocrat. There are factions that like it each way, and her job is to play both ends against the middle. You don't need a democratic mandate to appoint the head of a civil service. You definitely do when choosing the leader of the (de facto) government! It is increasingly clear that we need a supranational organization in Europe which IS a democratic government. Seems like it would be a natural fit for the EU to be that organization... and it looks like it is headed in that direction. That means it's our role as citizens to push for more democratic behavior at every turn.

jariel 6y ago
"It is increasingly clear that we need a supranational organization in Europe which IS a democratic government." I don't think that's clear at all. One could very much make the argument that it doesn't need 'governance' it needs 'coordination' which are very different things. I feel the vast majority of the most important things could be achieved mostly by treaty and that everyone could 'have their cake and eat it' which is to say have fully sovereign states and work together. I think there's quite a lot of a) ideology in the US of Europe b) it's the natural 'power creep' of any institution and c) the business class love to be able to 'skip democracy' and so do the 'socialist' types - both of whom kind of work in a weird kind of tolerance of one another, with I think the business class mostly in charge. In particular, the hugely vague mandates on 'Human Rights' are the biggest coup, though the least obvious. They basically give a 'carte blanche' to the EU courts to rule as they see fit, interpreting some basic, bland text to mean whatever they want it to mean. Since the EU courts often decide on their own jurisdiction ... it results in a huge concentration of legal power. It's a Judicial takeover. Something similar happened in Canada - not exactly on purpose - but when Trudeau Sr. introduced a new Constitution into Canada in the early 1980's - it was a 'nice modern document' but obviously vague. Since then, the Supreme Court of Canada has struck down innumerable old laws, new laws, they do it all the time, they even 'change their minds' on things like terminal care and suicide. Because of the vague wording, 'the world's top legal scholars and lawyers' have no clue what legislation is legal or not, it's just a matter of what our 'Tribal Council of Unelected Elders' decide to do. It's resulted in 'Law by Judicial Fiat' for a wide array of issues - all of the most important ones (identity, rights, marriage, abortion). Canadians, elected officials, politicians, the Prime Minister have little say in the matter ... except for this weird clause someone can effect which basically says a 'law is not bound by the constitution' - which is crazy in of itself. The 'Human Rights' mandates of the EU are controversial for this reason: obviously, they are humane and positive i.e. a 'good thing' - but many people oppose them on the legal problems the effectively create. These people are easily lambasted in the press as 'anti human rights' which is of course completely wrong. Europeans are quite smart, the lack of understanding of these things is really quite bothersome. People just seem to be happy to do whatever the elite tell them to do.

blibble 6y ago

the 2019 election had proper televised political debates amongst the leaders of the euro parties the council then ignored that completely and installed their own choice

addicted 6y ago

That sounds like, parliamentary democracy? I mean, how many regular people voted for Boris Johnson as PM, for example. The answer is exactly 0. That's just how parliamentary democracy works.

jariel 6y ago
No it's not 'like a parliamentary democracy' at all - the only 'resemblance' is that that there is some degree of 'representation'. But the similarities end there. You've actually provided a specific example - the most recent UK election, which highlights even further the lack of democracy in the EU, which is a 'confidence' election based on some important or existential issue, in that case, Brexit. + Voters were very well informed that Boris Johnson was to be the PM if a specific party were elected + They were very aware of the general platform of the parties + They were even more aware that the issue at the crux of the election was the type of resolution towards Brexit. + UK elected MPs have tremendous power - demonstrated in that very case: previous to the election, Boris Johnson faced a kind of censure by Parliament several times, MPs of all stripes voting for and against him. + The UK MPs collectively introduced legislation and forced the hand of government on several occasions. + The government was threatened with dissolution on several occasions, over a very important issue. None of this happens in the EU, by design. The EU is not a 'representative democracy' rather, it's a political entity which governs largely unto it's own devices - but in which some actions must have it's actions approved by elected officials.

Joeri 6y ago

Nonsense. Von der leyen was proposed by the council, consisting of representatives from every country, and by extension representative for the voters in every country. She was then confirmed by a majority of the EU parliament, which is directly elected by the citizens. Every EU citizen voted in those elections, or had the opportunity to. So, if only a “very few” voted that is on them. If their elected representatives did things they didn’t like (like confirming von der leyen), that is on them also, in the next parliamentary elections. What you are complaining about is that she was elected by newly elected representatives, but not directly elected by citizens. I find this to be hairsplitting and meaningless in a context of representative democracy.

kazen44 6y ago
also, in european politics, direct election of officials rarely happens. (unlike in american politics). People usually vote for parties and the persons within them, not an individual.
- jariel 6y ago
  This isn't so important though. Canada UK are the same. You don't technically elect a Prime Minister. But - the party, platforms, PM etc are very transparent, and elections are held on that basis. If the Conservative Party of the UK ran with B. Johnson and Brexit, but then after the election decided to make some randome guy from Scotland - that nobody ever heard of - the Prime Minister, and said Scot made a 'Throne Speech' with some completely different agenda ... ...there would be a revoluion. And of course PM has to be someone elected at their riding for good reason. It's simply not good enough to say 'someone voted somewhere' so therefore 'it's democracy and we can do what we want'.
jariel 6y ago
Far from 'hairsplitting and meaningless' the issue is at the very crux of 'democracy'. That almost nobody voted in the election, that nobody knew who the leader - or the platform - was going to be, and that she was absolutely chosen after the fact, by unelected leaders, that she cannot be sanctioned or replaced, and that elected MEPs cannot propose legislation - is fundamental to the nature of democracy. Even in proper democracies, particularly in Parliamentary systems, even the budget requires approval without which the government falls and elections are called. Why? Because the proposition of budgets necessitate popular sanction. Parliament - and even legislative assemblies can dissolve government if necessary. Ursula von der Leyen has unambiguously the least democratic legitimacy of any leader in the free world, by far. The fact that the EU was purposefully designed this way - in the very face of very healthy democratic institutions i.e. Switzerland, UK, Germany - implies the lack of democracy was very much 'by design'. It's an existential issue.