3 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. what? This

> 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.
ohthehugemanate 6y ago
First of all, thank you for phrasing in such a constructive way with "seems to be". I really appreciate that about this community. I'll try to clarify: The EU in many ways does operate like a government, at least like a confederacy. It has a legislative process, a directly elected parliament, and a president. We get "state of the union" addresses, for crying out loud! But its founding mission was as an independent third party to oversee coal and steal production. That kind of "referee" role between member states is central to how it is designed, and to much of its action. Some notable dissimilarities to a democratic government: - The EU has no constitution; it has treaties. - The EU has no sovereignty; limited powers flow upwards from individual member states. - The EU may only determine matters collectively which need to be determined collectively (principle of subsidiarity) - The only directly elected part of the EU (the EU Parliament) may not propose legislation. It gets to amend, improve, and approve/reject legislation proposed by the (unelected) EU Commission, to implement policy set by the European Council and its (unelected) president. - The "supreme executive" European Council is simply all the national leaders with an appointed head. That's the only source for new policy and leadership decisions. - The EU Commission - the partner body to the EU parliament, is a set of appointees from the EU Council, approved/rejected as a group by the parliament. The idea behind the setup is to make it easier to propose and ratify multi-lateral treaties with many sides and fixed membership. The directly elected Parliament is a sanity check, not a source of legislation. To use the US system as analogy because I can assume broad familiarity with it: - the executive branch is all the state governors. They appoint the President. - the senate is made of appointees from the executive branch, approved as a group by the congress. - the house of representatives is directly elected, and can only modify, approve, or reject legislation proposed by the senate. It is not a controversial opinion to say it is a hybrid system. In fact, from the Wikipedia page on the EU: "The EU operates through a hybrid system of supranational and intergovernmental decision-making,[132][133] and according to the principles of conferral (which says that it should act only within the limits of the competences conferred on it by the treaties) and of subsidiarity (which says that it should act only where an objective cannot be sufficiently achieved by the member states acting alone)." "Constitutionally, the EU bears some resemblance to both a confederation and a federation, but has not formally defined itself as either... It is more integrated than a traditional confederation of states because the general level of government widely employs qualified majority voting in some decision-making among the member states... It is less integrated than a federal state because it is not a state in its own right." Also, as evidenced by some of the other responses to my comment, my statement that we need a central political body is a controversial opinion. Hope this helps. Thanks for the excuse for a Wikipedia dive! You may also be interested in this recent Economist article about some of the problems of the dichotomy: https://www.economist.com/europe/2020/09/03/the-contradiction-at-the-heart-of-the-european-commission https://www.economist.com/europe/2020/09/03/the-contradictio...

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.

ohthehugemanate 6y ago

First of all, thank you for phrasing in such a constructive way with "seems to be". I really appreciate that about this community. I'll try to clarify: The EU in many ways does operate like a government, at least like a confederacy. It has a legislative process, a directly elected parliament, and a president. We get "state of the union" addresses, for crying out loud! But its founding mission was as an independent third party to oversee coal and steal production. That kind of "referee" role between member states is central to how it is designed, and to much of its action. Some notable dissimilarities to a democratic government: - The EU has no constitution; it has treaties. - The EU has no sovereignty; limited powers flow upwards from individual member states. - The EU may only determine matters collectively which need to be determined collectively (principle of subsidiarity) - The only directly elected part of the EU (the EU Parliament) may not propose legislation. It gets to amend, improve, and approve/reject legislation proposed by the (unelected) EU Commission, to implement policy set by the European Council and its (unelected) president. - The "supreme executive" European Council is simply all the national leaders with an appointed head. That's the only source for new policy and leadership decisions. - The EU Commission - the partner body to the EU parliament, is a set of appointees from the EU Council, approved/rejected as a group by the parliament. The idea behind the setup is to make it easier to propose and ratify multi-lateral treaties with many sides and fixed membership. The directly elected Parliament is a sanity check, not a source of legislation. To use the US system as analogy because I can assume broad familiarity with it: - the executive branch is all the state governors. They appoint the President. - the senate is made of appointees from the executive branch, approved as a group by the congress. - the house of representatives is directly elected, and can only modify, approve, or reject legislation proposed by the senate. It is not a controversial opinion to say it is a hybrid system. In fact, from the Wikipedia page on the EU: "The EU operates through a hybrid system of supranational and intergovernmental decision-making,[132][133] and according to the principles of conferral (which says that it should act only within the limits of the competences conferred on it by the treaties) and of subsidiarity (which says that it should act only where an objective cannot be sufficiently achieved by the member states acting alone)." "Constitutionally, the EU bears some resemblance to both a confederation and a federation, but has not formally defined itself as either... It is more integrated than a traditional confederation of states because the general level of government widely employs qualified majority voting in some decision-making among the member states... It is less integrated than a federal state because it is not a state in its own right." Also, as evidenced by some of the other responses to my comment, my statement that we need a central political body is a controversial opinion. Hope this helps. Thanks for the excuse for a Wikipedia dive! You may also be interested in this recent Economist article about some of the problems of the dichotomy: https://www.economist.com/europe/2020/09/03/the-contradiction-at-the-heart-of-the-european-commission https://www.economist.com/europe/2020/09/03/the-contradictio...