4 ms·

I'm also italian Turns out our system, while based on the same basic principles evolved in a very different way from the UK/Germany etc For the UK the main di

by arlort 4y ago

I'm also italian Turns out our system, while based on the same basic principles evolved in a very different way from the UK/Germany etc For the UK the main difference is that most of their governments are majority governments, due to their electoral system either labour or the tories are going to have (in 90% of cases) an outright majority, so the government (at least the PM) is going to be pretty much known as soon as the election is over In germany/the netherlands they have more often coalitions so you don't know until after the parties have negotiated post-election. This is closer to what we have in italy, however there are two differences: 1. There are strong conventions about the larger party taking the head of government position, something like what happened with the Conte I government where two parties agreed on a government but had to bring in a "neutral" PM does not happen abroad 2. Governments are more likely to last the length of the mandate, specifically it's quite rare to have governments fall and bring in a "governo tecnico" headed by a neutral PM So turns out that other countries are much less used to have the PM be someone that hasn't campaigned at all A third difference, in which italy is quite unique amongst parliamentary systems, is that both chambers have to give their confidence, almost everywhere else it's just the lower house, while in italy also the Senate must agree to a government. This is similar to how the European Council also has to agree on the EU commission members but very unlike other countries, where the upper houses are at worst symbolical and at best very constrained in their powers

gpderetta 4y ago
Certainly FPTP voting system lead to different dynamics, but even in UK, for example after Brexit, there have been prime minister changes without voting. Cabinet reshuffles are also not unheard of after power balance changes in the ruling party. But yes, 'technical governments' are certainly an Italian quirk. Regarding the Council (assuming you are referring to the council of the EU), that's certainly an institution I would like to see reformed as it is a body with legislative powers composed by executive members.
- arlort 4y ago
  There have been, but it's quite rare and not something they spend a whole lot of time thinking about > Council (assuming you are referring to the council of the EU) I was actually referring to the European Council, since it's the organ that is involved in the election of the Commission But agreed on the national executive branches legislating at the EU. That is at the same time the most undemocratic thing about the EU and the least common criticism, which I find baffling Personally I'd rather the council operated as a parliamentary assembly made up of delegations from national parliaments / national parliamentary committees I just don't want it to be directly elected too, the US made that mistake with the 17th amendment and I always get the feeling they're worse off for it
- mike_hearn 4y ago
  there have been prime minister changes without voting. As mentioned elsewhere, that's not the case. The PM has always won at least two votes, one in their constituency (winning a local election) and another from their party membership. What you really mean is, there has been no universal vote on the choice of PM themselves, which is correct. It's not a presidential system. However, that doesn't mean they never won a vote. In contrast, the EU is run by people who have never actually won a vote. Or, well, technically von der Leyen won a "vote" in the EU Parliament but she was the only candidate who was on the list, so "winning" only meant reaching the quorum threshold.
  - arlort 4y ago
    He meant there have been changes without a general election. And it wasn't a comment on the UK being a presidential system but (likely) rather a comment on my second point in the comment above, that point being that in Italy we're more used to having governments change without having to contend a general election I do want to say however that this argument about the double election you make doesn't really hold much water in my opinion. It is obvious that the UK institutions have a more developed democratic tradition than the EU ones But they do not lay in the PM having to be an MP nor in the parties using a primary to choose their leaders An MP is elected on the basis of their constituents thinking they'll do a good job as their representative, not as a way to find the most capable person in the country to be PM, so it's not a relevant election to gain legitimacy as PM, in the same way UvdL being an MP in the bundestag for 10 years prior to becoming commission president doesn't improve her legitimacy as EC president As for the party vote, that is a good system and I do wish they'd gone with the spitzenkandidaten (more so we could stop having this conversation than any practical reason or love for Weber), but in this case it'd have been more undemocratic, not less Weber, much less Timmermans or the Renew people, had no outright majority in the parliament and no majority in the Council, and the council has its own legitimacy even if its made up of (mostly) indirectly elected individuals. Members of the EUCO have more visibility and their actions are under much greater expectations of representing popular will than any single MP or MEP I fail to see the democratic appeal of a majority of voters (whose MEPs and leaders didn't think Weber was a good fit) having their voices ignored because Weber won a vote within a private organization But that might also be because where I'm from the expectation is for government to represent a majority rather than a plurality > "vote" in the EU Parliament but she was the only candidate who was on the list, so "winning" only meant reaching the quorum threshold. I was under the impression you were from the UK, so I apologize if I assumed familiarity with the parliamentary system in my comments above In parliamentary systems (which the EU kinda is with some differences) after an election the Head of State consults with the parties to find who would be able to form a government and then once it reaches a decision the individual in question asks Parliament for their confidence and if parliament gives it (so a majority votes yes) then they are "elected" In the EU's case the only peculiarity is that instead of the Head of State being an individual it's the European Council acting by QMV Even after reaching the quorum if a majority in parliament had voted No to UvdL she wouldn't be Comission president

by arlort 4y ago

gpderetta 4y ago

Certainly FPTP voting system lead to different dynamics, but even in UK, for example after Brexit, there have been prime minister changes without voting. Cabinet reshuffles are also not unheard of after power balance changes in the ruling party. But yes, 'technical governments' are certainly an Italian quirk. Regarding the Council (assuming you are referring to the council of the EU), that's certainly an institution I would like to see reformed as it is a body with legislative powers composed by executive members.

arlort 4y ago
There have been, but it's quite rare and not something they spend a whole lot of time thinking about > Council (assuming you are referring to the council of the EU) I was actually referring to the European Council, since it's the organ that is involved in the election of the Commission But agreed on the national executive branches legislating at the EU. That is at the same time the most undemocratic thing about the EU and the least common criticism, which I find baffling Personally I'd rather the council operated as a parliamentary assembly made up of delegations from national parliaments / national parliamentary committees I just don't want it to be directly elected too, the US made that mistake with the 17th amendment and I always get the feeling they're worse off for it
mike_hearn 4y ago
there have been prime minister changes without voting. As mentioned elsewhere, that's not the case. The PM has always won at least two votes, one in their constituency (winning a local election) and another from their party membership. What you really mean is, there has been no universal vote on the choice of PM themselves, which is correct. It's not a presidential system. However, that doesn't mean they never won a vote. In contrast, the EU is run by people who have never actually won a vote. Or, well, technically von der Leyen won a "vote" in the EU Parliament but she was the only candidate who was on the list, so "winning" only meant reaching the quorum threshold.
- arlort 4y ago
  He meant there have been changes without a general election. And it wasn't a comment on the UK being a presidential system but (likely) rather a comment on my second point in the comment above, that point being that in Italy we're more used to having governments change without having to contend a general election I do want to say however that this argument about the double election you make doesn't really hold much water in my opinion. It is obvious that the UK institutions have a more developed democratic tradition than the EU ones But they do not lay in the PM having to be an MP nor in the parties using a primary to choose their leaders An MP is elected on the basis of their constituents thinking they'll do a good job as their representative, not as a way to find the most capable person in the country to be PM, so it's not a relevant election to gain legitimacy as PM, in the same way UvdL being an MP in the bundestag for 10 years prior to becoming commission president doesn't improve her legitimacy as EC president As for the party vote, that is a good system and I do wish they'd gone with the spitzenkandidaten (more so we could stop having this conversation than any practical reason or love for Weber), but in this case it'd have been more undemocratic, not less Weber, much less Timmermans or the Renew people, had no outright majority in the parliament and no majority in the Council, and the council has its own legitimacy even if its made up of (mostly) indirectly elected individuals. Members of the EUCO have more visibility and their actions are under much greater expectations of representing popular will than any single MP or MEP I fail to see the democratic appeal of a majority of voters (whose MEPs and leaders didn't think Weber was a good fit) having their voices ignored because Weber won a vote within a private organization But that might also be because where I'm from the expectation is for government to represent a majority rather than a plurality > "vote" in the EU Parliament but she was the only candidate who was on the list, so "winning" only meant reaching the quorum threshold. I was under the impression you were from the UK, so I apologize if I assumed familiarity with the parliamentary system in my comments above In parliamentary systems (which the EU kinda is with some differences) after an election the Head of State consults with the parties to find who would be able to form a government and then once it reaches a decision the individual in question asks Parliament for their confidence and if parliament gives it (so a majority votes yes) then they are "elected" In the EU's case the only peculiarity is that instead of the Head of State being an individual it's the European Council acting by QMV Even after reaching the quorum if a majority in parliament had voted No to UvdL she wouldn't be Comission president