4 ms·

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 i

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.
- nsajko 6y ago
  Any law will, at some point at least, become to vague. On the other hand, I too have the perception that bills are often carelessly written and too vague[0], but I think your understanding of jurisprudence or what a judge's job should be is not realistic. The system is not meant to be mechanical. I think that for meaningful discussion to be possible, you would have to provide a much more specific, concrete example; but that of course runs the risk of being beyond the understanding of us non-lawyers. [0] Somebody on HN opined that this is because most politicians are lawyers, and they have an interest in preserving/increasing job opportunities for lawyers, or something like that. I wish I could find the comment.
kazen44 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. what? This opinion seems to be highly uninformed about how the EU and it's actual bodies work. i can vote for EU elections and representatives in the european parlement. Also the european commision and the council consist of either parties elected in the national elections, or national leaders themselves. Also, the european parlement uses quantitative representation, which means smaller nations have a larger say compared to larger ones. >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. What dual identity? The european community has had a parlement since the 70's, and the european project has been a political union since it's very beginning in the 50's. You seem to assume that van der leyen has vast political power on her own, but the EU is far to decentralized for that. The EU is is a complex political system because it is highly decentralised. (which in terms is happening because all it's members are sovereign). >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! This democratic process exists, as explained above. not having direct representation is not the issue here. The way of elections in the EU is roughly the same as what happens in most if not all EU member states. (with the exception of mainly the UK).
- jariel 6y ago
  "This opinion seems to be highly uninformed about how the EU and it's actual bodies work." " the european commision and the council consist of either parties elected in the national elections" For lambasting others as uninformed, you should check your facts first. The EU Commission is not made up of elected officials, moreover, the EU has no obligation whatsoever to follow the results of parliamentary elections. The 'proportional' makeup of the assembly is irrelevant if they are mostly powerless - by far the most powerless legislative assembly in the free world. " The way of elections in the EU is roughly the same as what happens in most if not all EU member states" This is really not true. The leaders of various parties, their platforms etc. are all well known during the course of EU member state elections, moreover, EU member state legislative bodies have the power to sanction, remove the executive, and of course to actually legislate. Edit: EU members states have some of the best and most representative democracies in the world, it's such a blatant contrast at the EU level, it's hard to forgive people for not seeing why things are the way they are.

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.

nsajko 6y ago
Any law will, at some point at least, become to vague. On the other hand, I too have the perception that bills are often carelessly written and too vague[0], but I think your understanding of jurisprudence or what a judge's job should be is not realistic. The system is not meant to be mechanical. I think that for meaningful discussion to be possible, you would have to provide a much more specific, concrete example; but that of course runs the risk of being beyond the understanding of us non-lawyers. [0] Somebody on HN opined that this is because most politicians are lawyers, and they have an interest in preserving/increasing job opportunities for lawyers, or something like that. I wish I could find the comment.

kazen44 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. what? This opinion seems to be highly uninformed about how the EU and it's actual bodies work. i can vote for EU elections and representatives in the european parlement. Also the european commision and the council consist of either parties elected in the national elections, or national leaders themselves. Also, the european parlement uses quantitative representation, which means smaller nations have a larger say compared to larger ones. >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. What dual identity? The european community has had a parlement since the 70's, and the european project has been a political union since it's very beginning in the 50's. You seem to assume that van der leyen has vast political power on her own, but the EU is far to decentralized for that. The EU is is a complex political system because it is highly decentralised. (which in terms is happening because all it's members are sovereign). >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! This democratic process exists, as explained above. not having direct representation is not the issue here. The way of elections in the EU is roughly the same as what happens in most if not all EU member states. (with the exception of mainly the UK).

jariel 6y ago
"This opinion seems to be highly uninformed about how the EU and it's actual bodies work." " the european commision and the council consist of either parties elected in the national elections" For lambasting others as uninformed, you should check your facts first. The EU Commission is not made up of elected officials, moreover, the EU has no obligation whatsoever to follow the results of parliamentary elections. The 'proportional' makeup of the assembly is irrelevant if they are mostly powerless - by far the most powerless legislative assembly in the free world. " The way of elections in the EU is roughly the same as what happens in most if not all EU member states" This is really not true. The leaders of various parties, their platforms etc. are all well known during the course of EU member state elections, moreover, EU member state legislative bodies have the power to sanction, remove the executive, and of course to actually legislate. Edit: EU members states have some of the best and most representative democracies in the world, it's such a blatant contrast at the EU level, it's hard to forgive people for not seeing why things are the way they are.