6 ms·

They promised us that the candidate of the strongest party will get the job.

by turbinerneiter 6y ago

hef19898 6y ago
Isn't the EVP the strongest block in the EU parliament right now?
- turbinerneiter 6y ago
  Yes, but the candidate was Weber. Von der Leyen didn't even run for parliament. It was all a big deuce dropped on the parliament, really. The parliament is the only directly elected body in the EU, and the nations governments hate the idea that it could gain any kind of real power.
  - hef19898 6y ago
    The German chancellor is elected the same way. There is nothing preventing a candidate change after the election, plus there is no way to tell which coalition will actually form. And still almost nobody would argue that the German federal government isn't democratically legitimized.
    - turbinerneiter 6y ago
      I mean why do all of you just keep ignoring what I'm saying? We were promised that the candidate of the winning party would get the job! All parties in the election agreed to that. We had debates between the candidates rooted on that promise. The whole election was based on that. The EU has serious problems with democratic legitimacy, it has serious problems with Trust, and yet people defend those moves because they are technically legal. The voters were told one thing and they got another thing. And then the EU does an about-face and wonders why there is so many people distrusting it. Do you want the EU to succeed or not? If you want it to succeed, like I do, we have to call out the issues and fix them, instead of defending broken things because we still believe in the whole. The EU will never reach its potential if we don't mature it's political system and give the people some direct, visible control.
      - intricatedetail 6y ago
        For me the biggest deal breaker is that the laws come out of nowhere. Suddenly there is policy, then vote and then implementation. If you don't like the proposed laws you cannot vote down people who proposed it. Then when it comes to vote of parliament is often too late. Most MEP don't even know what they vote anyway (watch any session, it's eye opening). I don't know how anyone can stand for it and defend it.
        iknowstuff 6y ago
        In US Congress you can only vote down the member from your district. In the EU, your vote impacts the selection of MEPS not just for one small district, but for an entire country’s worth of MEPs. So your vote does matter and you can vote down the party you disagree with. You just don’t seem to understand how it works. Watch any parliament at work and it’s just as eye opening.
        dragonwriter 6y ago
        > In US Congress you can only vote down the member from your district. In the US Congress you can vote for, or against, both your district’s representative in the House and your entire state’s representatives in the Senate. But, more important, the EP, while it is involved in some legislation, doesn't have the preeminent lawmaking power that you'd expect of a parliament; the European Commission has legislative initiative, and their legislation must be confirmed by the European Council and in some cases the European Parliament. So, great, the electoral system for the EP is arguably more effectively representative than that for the IS Congress, but that would matter a lot more if the EP had the legislative role of the US Congress or a normal parliament.
        lmm 6y ago
        > In the EU, your vote impacts the selection of MEPS not just for one small district, but for an entire country’s worth of MEPs. With the result that candidates aren't accountable to voters, only to party bureaucracy, since their chances of reelection depend much more on where they are on the party list than on how many voters approved of their voting. Not to mention that MEPs don't get to write the laws - the laws are written by the unelected commision.
    - readittwice 6y ago
      The president could prevent that though and could ask for a re-election in case of a candidate change after the election. So not nothing ;) Almost no one would argue that because AFAIK that never happened. Pretty sure people would argue that way as soon as this happens.
  - iso1210 6y ago
    Yes, this was a major regressive move compared with 2014 and the spitzenkandidat The move was caused by the democratically elected heads of government of the member nations (including the UK at that time), not by the commission. P.S. in the UK the last time someone became PM the morning after winning a majority in a general election was 1997. The time before that was 1979. Major, Brown, May, Johnson were all selected by their party members Thatcher, Blair led parties that won an election (although less than 50% of the vote) Cameron won a plurarity of the seats in parliament but required both Tory and Lib Dem agreement The idea in the UK of the PM being elected is very rare.

They promised us that the candidate of the strongest party will get the job.

hef19898 6y ago

Isn't the EVP the strongest block in the EU parliament right now?

turbinerneiter 6y ago
Yes, but the candidate was Weber. Von der Leyen didn't even run for parliament. It was all a big deuce dropped on the parliament, really. The parliament is the only directly elected body in the EU, and the nations governments hate the idea that it could gain any kind of real power.
- hef19898 6y ago
  The German chancellor is elected the same way. There is nothing preventing a candidate change after the election, plus there is no way to tell which coalition will actually form. And still almost nobody would argue that the German federal government isn't democratically legitimized.
  - turbinerneiter 6y ago
    I mean why do all of you just keep ignoring what I'm saying? We were promised that the candidate of the winning party would get the job! All parties in the election agreed to that. We had debates between the candidates rooted on that promise. The whole election was based on that. The EU has serious problems with democratic legitimacy, it has serious problems with Trust, and yet people defend those moves because they are technically legal. The voters were told one thing and they got another thing. And then the EU does an about-face and wonders why there is so many people distrusting it. Do you want the EU to succeed or not? If you want it to succeed, like I do, we have to call out the issues and fix them, instead of defending broken things because we still believe in the whole. The EU will never reach its potential if we don't mature it's political system and give the people some direct, visible control.
    - intricatedetail 6y ago
      For me the biggest deal breaker is that the laws come out of nowhere. Suddenly there is policy, then vote and then implementation. If you don't like the proposed laws you cannot vote down people who proposed it. Then when it comes to vote of parliament is often too late. Most MEP don't even know what they vote anyway (watch any session, it's eye opening). I don't know how anyone can stand for it and defend it.
      - iknowstuff 6y ago
        In US Congress you can only vote down the member from your district. In the EU, your vote impacts the selection of MEPS not just for one small district, but for an entire country’s worth of MEPs. So your vote does matter and you can vote down the party you disagree with. You just don’t seem to understand how it works. Watch any parliament at work and it’s just as eye opening.
        dragonwriter 6y ago
        > In US Congress you can only vote down the member from your district. In the US Congress you can vote for, or against, both your district’s representative in the House and your entire state’s representatives in the Senate. But, more important, the EP, while it is involved in some legislation, doesn't have the preeminent lawmaking power that you'd expect of a parliament; the European Commission has legislative initiative, and their legislation must be confirmed by the European Council and in some cases the European Parliament. So, great, the electoral system for the EP is arguably more effectively representative than that for the IS Congress, but that would matter a lot more if the EP had the legislative role of the US Congress or a normal parliament.
        lmm 6y ago
        > In the EU, your vote impacts the selection of MEPS not just for one small district, but for an entire country’s worth of MEPs. With the result that candidates aren't accountable to voters, only to party bureaucracy, since their chances of reelection depend much more on where they are on the party list than on how many voters approved of their voting. Not to mention that MEPs don't get to write the laws - the laws are written by the unelected commision.
  - readittwice 6y ago
    The president could prevent that though and could ask for a re-election in case of a candidate change after the election. So not nothing ;) Almost no one would argue that because AFAIK that never happened. Pretty sure people would argue that way as soon as this happens.
- iso1210 6y ago
  Yes, this was a major regressive move compared with 2014 and the spitzenkandidat The move was caused by the democratically elected heads of government of the member nations (including the UK at that time), not by the commission. P.S. in the UK the last time someone became PM the morning after winning a majority in a general election was 1997. The time before that was 1979. Major, Brown, May, Johnson were all selected by their party members Thatcher, Blair led parties that won an election (although less than 50% of the vote) Cameron won a plurarity of the seats in parliament but required both Tory and Lib Dem agreement The idea in the UK of the PM being elected is very rare.