3 ms·
The EU democratic structure is complex, that for sure. But it's hardly undemocratic.
The EU has always struggled to explain how it works, why it's structure wo
The EU democratic structure is complex, that for sure. But it's hardly undemocratic.
The EU has always struggled to explain how it works, why it's structure works the way it does. But all the leaders in the EU are elected, just not always via direct elections. A process that actually isn't that unusual in the world.
The US is actually a bit of an outlier, because they have direct elections for almost every position in government, with some slightly mixed results. The EU it's common for countries to select and organise their executive bodies via in-direct elections. For example in the UK our prime minister isn't directly elected, the general public didn't "choose" Boris Johnson. Instead the conservative party did, via its own methodology which it can change any time it does.
The current byzantine system exists out of a need to somehow balance the power of the EU as a federal entity, against the sovereignty of the individual nations. With irony come from the fact that the "unelected" leader only exist because it give more power to leaders of the member states, and takes it away from the EU as an organisation independent of its member states and their elected governments.
The EU democratic structure is complex, that for sure. But it's hardly undemocratic.
I don't really want to start a rehash of the entire Brexit debate we had in the UK, but the EU does have a serious democratic deficit.
Ask yourself this simple question: Can a citizen who is governed by the EU meaningfully influence who is doing that governing? In particular, can a large group of citizens affect who holds power within the EU and vote out those individuals they don't want, so any individual office holder has some degree of personal accountability to the electorate?
It would take quite a leap to argue that the European Commission, which is where most of the real power still lies in practice, would meet any of those standards.
It is debatable whether even the European Parliament does, though it is at least more directly affected by the public vote.
For example in the UK our prime minister isn't directly elected, the general public didn't "choose" Boris Johnson. Instead the conservative party did, via its own methodology which it can change any time it does.
Our arrangement here in the UK suffers from a similar problem of failing to faithfully represent the will of the electorate. FPTP is a deeply flawed voting system on purely mathematical grounds, and then the mechanics through which the PM and by extension the government come to power once MPs have been elected can be even more distorted.
If you don't think it matters that many of our population have little influence over who occupies Number 10, I would respectfully remind you that one of the first things each new PM does is handwrite four letters that could literally cause the end of the world as we know it.
> Can a citizen who is governed by the EU meaningfully influence who is doing that governing? In particular, can a large group of citizens affect who holds power within the EU and vote out those individuals they don't want, so any individual office holder has some degree of personal accountability to the electorate?
Erm yes. A large group of citizen can apply pressure to its local government to push for change in the EU, they can also to the same via MEP elections. You just need to remember that a "large group" need to be very large to be considered important relative to the EU 450 million citizens. The UK's total population only makes up 14% of the total EU population, what gives us the right to dictate terms over the remaining 86%?
National governments pick the members of the European Commision, so if you're not happy with your European Commission representative, take it up with your national government. As for the member picked by other governments, well you wouldn't expect to have power over an MP that doesn't represent you.
> It is debatable whether even the European Parliament does
The European Parliament obviously does. The only reason why the UK keeps getting short changed by the European Parliament is because we keep electing idiots into power. Most because our national government like to pretend MEPs don't exist, thus doesn't educate people on the importance of MEP elections, then acts surprised when the European Parliament doesn't represent the UK population.
> If you don't think it matters that many of our population have little influence over who occupies Number 10
I think it does matter, I think it matter quite a bit. But I'm not convinced that the general public is the best body to make that choice directly. The whole point of have a representatives is that they have the time and resources to educate themselves on the minutiae of state, and make better decisions than the general public. Not because they're smarter or better, but because they're better informed.
My view on the EU debate in the UK has always boiled down to the fact the UK public has simply not bothered to engage with the democratic systems in the EU, so it's not a surprise that those systems don't represent us. The fix here was always for the UK to actually participate in the EU, not just strope, but that would require the UK national government to stop using the EU as it scapegoat for its own domestic failures. At least with Brexit the UK government won't be able to blame the EU for everything anymore, and we might actually get some competent leaders with a real vision for the UK.
These are the usual arguments in defence of the EU's democratic credentials. The fundamental problem I have with them is that they don't actually meet the simple, transparent standards I set out for meaningful democratic representation.
National governments pick the members of the European Commision, so if you're not happy with your European Commission representative, take it up with your national government.
How, specifically, should someone do that in practice? Does someone cast an anonymous vote to indicate their preference? Will some robust system then make an objective determination of the outcome based on the popular vote? This is how the people customarily determine their representatives in a representative democracy.
In reality, the number of levels of indirection between you or me as ordinary people who vote in elections and Ursula von der Leyen as the most powerful person in the EU government removes any meaningful requirement for her to either achieve a popular mandate before taking office or accept any meaningful personal accountability for her performance while in office.
And more generally, European Commissioner is infamous for being a role you give a national politician who is still in favour with the leadership but perhaps has lost popular support. Just look at the past roles of the people who get nominated to these positions by their respective governments. There's an incredible number of ex-representatives, and often not ex- by choice but because the electorate chose not to re-elect them.
The European Parliament obviously does.
Not in my country. While it operates a PR system, it's a party list, so again at a minimum it fails my personal accountability criterion. The only way for the people to remove a particular individual they don't like from power is, in this case, to remove everyone from that individual's party from power in that electoral region.
In fact, this is the same basic problem with many of the situations we've been discussing here. You can in theory indirectly influence which individual holds power. The catch is that your only way to remove them is some sort of nuclear option. Don't like your nation's choice for European Commissioner? No problem, just elect a different entire national government at the last election. Don't like the UK's current PM? No problem, just make sure no-one votes for any MPs in that person's party at the last election. Don't like the current European Commission President? Sorry, I can't help you much with that one because hardly anyone (including hundreds of MEPs, by the way) actually knows how she got the job.
The whole point of have a representatives is that they have the time and resources to educate themselves on the minutiae of state, and make better decisions than the general public. Not because they're smarter or better, but because they're better informed.
Again, so the theory goes. But as someone who has interacted with various MPs personally, and through them also with senior figures in government on a few occasions, I can promise you that it is a work of fiction in practice.
Just look at the nonsense MPs on both sides of the Brexit debate were shouting from the rooftops before the referendum. Or for something a little less inflammatory, try the arguments they've made about regulating business and technology, including in the EU measures we're discussing here and the roughly analogous UK plans also announced today. Those weren't the arguments of well-informed experts who have studied the issues and drawn rational conclusions. In many cases, they weren't even the arguments of a moderately well-informed member of the general public. And they were statements not just from elected representatives but often from senior government figures!
The truth is that there is absolutely nothing about our current system of government that requires our MPs to be qualified to make or capable of making better decisions than members of the public who are well-informed about and personally interested in any particular issue. Even those who are intelligent and trying to do a good job, as I'm sure many MPs actually are despite all the negative press they get, can't possibly become experts on everything and don't have the resources to staff it out. And even on issues they do choose to prioritise, unless they are members of the party in power and take a government position with all the strings that are attached to doing so, their power to influence policy is often very limited even when acting in quite large groups.
And the same is true of most other elected representatives and political appointments, whether in the UK or EU. This isn't about Brexit, or about being pro- or anti-EU, if that even means anything anyway. It's a problem with systems of government operating at national and international levels where those in power are so well insulated from the voting public that they don't require a popular mandate and aren't required to be accountable to the people for whom they supposedly act. That's not democracy, at least not in any meaningful sense of the word.
The UK public has been told very little about the EU. There's very little local European news in the British media, and what does appear is often jokey and condescending or slanted in a negative.
A snowstorm in the US will get significant coverage, but an equivalent major weather event in France and Germany won't.
The reality is the British Establishment simply doesn't understand Europe as a social and political project. It has no clue what consensus building, social responsibility, and political integration are for, and simply sees the EU - at least, saw the EU - as an exploitable if rather shifty trading partner.
Now the EU is a competitor, the US has limited interest in the UK, the former commonwealth countries have been looking elsewhere, and the UK's rather minimal level of independent leverage is about to become very obvious.
"Erm yes. A large group of citizen can apply pressure to its local government to push for change in the EU, they can also to the same via MEP elections. "
This is obviously false, it has never happened in the history of the EU - just the opposite - citizens literally voted overwhelmingly against major treaties, and they were passed anyhow.
Explain to us right now how major nations voted against the Treaty of Lisbon, and it was enacted anyhow?
"It is debatable whether even the European Parliament does
The European Parliament obviously does. "
It obviously doe not, the evidence is clear: MEPs don't even have the right to introduce legislation, they don't chose or censure their leaders, they have almost no power at all.
"thus doesn't educate people on the importance of MEP elections, then acts surprised when the European Parliament doesn't represent the UK population."
Again, completely baseless claims. The level of awareness of MEP involvement is similarly low in other countries.
"My view on the EU debate in the UK has always boiled down to the fact the UK public has simply not bothered to engage with the democratic systems in the EU"
No - there is no meaningful way for individual citizens or groups to engage with on the EU level, by reason of scale and design, it was never meant to be that way.
Ask yourself the question:
+ Why can MEPs not introduce legislation?
+ Why can MEPs not meaningfully censure leaders?
+ Why can MEPs, the only elected officials, not chose the leadership cadre?
+ Why is election turnout a paltry 45%
Those were concrete, well designed choices, and the lack of democracy embodied in those choices was purposeful.
The EU was specifically designed with a democracy deficit to keep the plebes and populism at bay.
Those who defend the system are either ignorant of the reality of it, like Chinese commoners defending their President Xi on the basis of 'security and prosperity' - or they know the Machiavellian roots of the decisions and are just unwilling to admit it.
Pro EU people are so often unwilling to engage in any way in the issue, they're like Trumpers or the more hardcore patriotic America types who see no wrong or nuance in American foreign policy example.
It's like a cult.
> Can a citizen who is governed by the EU meaningfully influence who is doing that governing? In particular, can a large group of citizens affect who holds power within the EU and vote out those individuals they don't want, so any individual office holder has some degree of personal accountability to the electorate?
In theory, yes. But it would take a huge group of people. Which is practically impossible these days.
So you are right, there is a serious deficit of democracy, not only in the EU, but everywhere imo.
I realised after I wrote my original comment that I forgot to add a rider along the lines of "without causing profound and possibly unwanted side effects", which is often the fundamental problem with having indirectly elected (aka appointed without a popular vote) people in positions of power.
And you're right, this is a very widespread problem today. That doesn't mean we shouldn't acknowledge the issue and challenge the status quo where opportunities present, of course.