3 ms·

The Commission is undemocratic because it holds great power, yet its members are unelected. Contrast with the EU Parliament, which is elected and therefore far

The Commission is undemocratic because it holds great power, yet its members are unelected. Contrast with the EU Parliament, which is elected and therefore far more accountable to the electorate.

tarkin2 15y ago
The Commission's staff are chosen and approved by both the indirectly elected Council (Member State government ministers) and the directly elected European Parliament[1]. The Parliament has forced the dissolution of the Commission before. http://ec.europa.eu/atwork/basicfacts/index_en.htm#chooses http://ec.europa.eu/atwork/basicfacts/index_en.htm#chooses
fauigerzigerk 15y ago
By that standard most governments are undemocratic. The UK is a particularly interesting case with a monarch that can dissolve parliament, appoint the prime minister, as well as hereditary and life peers in the upper house.
- archangel_one 15y ago
  The key difference here is that while that is theoretically the case, the Queen does not in practice arbitrarily dissolve parliament, and her appointing the prime minister is basically a formality. The House of Lords, while it is fairly undemocratic, doesn't seem to be doing any worse a job of looking out for the rest of us than the Commons are. Contrast this to the various EU directives which frequently are interfering in local affairs, often not in a way that's in our best interests.
  - fauigerzigerk 15y ago
    I think we need to seperate two issues here: One is whether or not a particular government does a good job and the other is how democratic it is. The first question is too subjective in general to have a useful debate. I'll just say that complaints about interference in local affairs have been a mainstay of all political unions ever formed, including The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Just ask the Scottish. And it's completely natural because "interference" is just another word for "governing". However, the parent post was about the democratic legitimacy of the EU commission. The commission is not directly elected just as most other governments are not directly elected. In most countries cabinet ministers are not even elected MPs. Parliaments are elected and sometimes heads of states but rarely governments. The closest thing to an elected government are probably the presidential systems in the US and France. Most critics of the EU do not want an elected EU president or a directly elected EU commission as that would obviously take away more powers from the nation states. That's a legitimate position, but it's incompatible with criticising the EU for not being democratic enough.
- Angostura 15y ago
  A closer comparison is the suggestion that although UK government departments are headed by ministers, they are actually run by the permanent civil service, which is akin to the EU Commission.

The Commission is undemocratic because it holds great power, yet its members are unelected. Contrast with the EU Parliament, which is elected and therefore far more accountable to the electorate.

tarkin2 15y ago

The Commission's staff are chosen and approved by both the indirectly elected Council (Member State government ministers) and the directly elected European Parliament[1]. The Parliament has forced the dissolution of the Commission before. http://ec.europa.eu/atwork/basicfacts/index_en.htm#chooses http://ec.europa.eu/atwork/basicfacts/index_en.htm#chooses

fauigerzigerk 15y ago

By that standard most governments are undemocratic. The UK is a particularly interesting case with a monarch that can dissolve parliament, appoint the prime minister, as well as hereditary and life peers in the upper house.

archangel_one 15y ago
The key difference here is that while that is theoretically the case, the Queen does not in practice arbitrarily dissolve parliament, and her appointing the prime minister is basically a formality. The House of Lords, while it is fairly undemocratic, doesn't seem to be doing any worse a job of looking out for the rest of us than the Commons are. Contrast this to the various EU directives which frequently are interfering in local affairs, often not in a way that's in our best interests.
- fauigerzigerk 15y ago
  I think we need to seperate two issues here: One is whether or not a particular government does a good job and the other is how democratic it is. The first question is too subjective in general to have a useful debate. I'll just say that complaints about interference in local affairs have been a mainstay of all political unions ever formed, including The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Just ask the Scottish. And it's completely natural because "interference" is just another word for "governing". However, the parent post was about the democratic legitimacy of the EU commission. The commission is not directly elected just as most other governments are not directly elected. In most countries cabinet ministers are not even elected MPs. Parliaments are elected and sometimes heads of states but rarely governments. The closest thing to an elected government are probably the presidential systems in the US and France. Most critics of the EU do not want an elected EU president or a directly elected EU commission as that would obviously take away more powers from the nation states. That's a legitimate position, but it's incompatible with criticising the EU for not being democratic enough.
Angostura 15y ago
A closer comparison is the suggestion that although UK government departments are headed by ministers, they are actually run by the permanent civil service, which is akin to the EU Commission.