4 ms·

There is this legend that Rupert Murdoch said he doesn't like the EU because he can walk into Downing Street and everyone listens, but he can't do that in Bruss

There is this legend that Rupert Murdoch said he doesn't like the EU because he can walk into Downing Street and everyone listens, but he can't do that in Brussels. He was wrong, just like the EU politicians who say that big powers can't force their way on a union of 300 million people - they can, very easily, they just have to groom an EU commissioner. One person! The EU commissioners are the biggest fault with the EU and it's disheartening how no one addresses that. Even after Brexit, when every EU politician asked how they can make the EU more attractive - they mentioned everything, but a reform that makes it more democratic was out of question.

seydor 3y ago
It's clear that the current leadership of the EU has led it to slide away from democracy with a number of missteps that clearly don't represent the people of the EU , but the desires of a very small group of well-entrenched eurocrats. It's time to let the EU know that we need change, because times are tough. The problem is: there is no mechanism for the people of the EU to petition the commission. Only lobbying groups
- toyg 3y ago
  But you can vote for your representative in the Parliament, and effectively hold veto on commissioner overreach. This worked fine while socialist parties held majorities in the EP; that's not the case anymore, and it shows: the Commission-Council axis has been excessively strengthened by conservative parties.
  - zosima 3y ago
    Good plan, except that there is 705 MPs and my country's vote only counts for 1-2% of those seats. In addition, there is so much legislation being passed through the parliament, that the vast majority of MPs don't have much of a chance of knowing what they're actually voting for. Much less anyone else.
  - seydor 3y ago
    in theory you have that tiny amount of accuontability, in practice nobody votes like that and candidates don't even bother campaigning on EU issues, the MEP elections follow the local politics of each country, and practically they are only referenced by their local party affiliation. Most europeans dont even know what are the parties of the EP. Again, i m not sure there s even a procedure to remove the EC president
mrtksn 3y ago
What happens when you groom one commissioner exactly? For some reason, I feel like my sonars are detecting too much of submarines lately. Lots ot messaging on hypothetical dangers without much to show.
avianlyric 3y ago
> The EU commissioners are the biggest fault with the EU and it's disheartening how no one addresses that > but a reform that makes it more democratic was out of question. Because the existence of commissioners, and their strange position in the EU is both very deliberate, and incredibly important to the continued existence of the EU. The EU isn’t a federal government, it’s a super state entity that exists in an uneasy balance with governments of each member state. The consequence is that “more democracy” doesn’t help the EU, or make it more attractive (at least not to national governments, and they’re the ones that sign treaties). Balancing the powers of the individual EU states, with their elected governments and different democratic processes, with the powers of the EU as a super state entity is hard. No national government wants to hand off their own sovereign power to an external entity they have little direct influence over, so the EU commissioners exist. Their explicit purpose is to allow national governments to place a heavy thumb on the democratic scales in Brussels, to provide assurances to those national governments that their own state can’t be dictated to by other states within the EU who may hold different cultural values. The result of all this mess isn’t perfect, and is hard to understand as a random citizen. But simply getting rid of commissioners, and introducing “more democracy” which implicitly reduces the power of national governments, doesn’t provide a practical solution for the EU. The real solutions will be convoluted, nuanced, and slow to develop, that’s just the consequence of trying to get 27 very independent nation states to get along.
- wwtrv 3y ago
  > to provide assurances to those national governments that their own state can’t be dictated to by other states within the EU who may hold different cultural values. You might be thinking about the council and not the commission? While commissioners are appointed by national governments they "control" a fairly narrow area, e.g. if you get to appoint the commissioner for fisheries and agriculture he won't be able to influence healthcare policy that much.
  - avianlyric 3y ago
    > You might be thinking about the council and not the commission? I am thinking of the commission, not the council. The EU parliament has no “right of initiative”, so it can’t propose new legislation itself, it can only work in legislation proposed by the EU commission. Which gives the commission a big chunk of soft power, because they effectively set the agenda of the EU parliament. The EU commission has both an executive role, which is the different ministries you mention, but also a legislative role, which is proposing legislation to the EU parliament. Which where an individual EU commissioner could have serious long term impact, as we’re seeing with these message scanning laws.

seydor 3y ago

It's clear that the current leadership of the EU has led it to slide away from democracy with a number of missteps that clearly don't represent the people of the EU , but the desires of a very small group of well-entrenched eurocrats. It's time to let the EU know that we need change, because times are tough. The problem is: there is no mechanism for the people of the EU to petition the commission. Only lobbying groups

toyg 3y ago
But you can vote for your representative in the Parliament, and effectively hold veto on commissioner overreach. This worked fine while socialist parties held majorities in the EP; that's not the case anymore, and it shows: the Commission-Council axis has been excessively strengthened by conservative parties.
- zosima 3y ago
  Good plan, except that there is 705 MPs and my country's vote only counts for 1-2% of those seats. In addition, there is so much legislation being passed through the parliament, that the vast majority of MPs don't have much of a chance of knowing what they're actually voting for. Much less anyone else.
- seydor 3y ago
  in theory you have that tiny amount of accuontability, in practice nobody votes like that and candidates don't even bother campaigning on EU issues, the MEP elections follow the local politics of each country, and practically they are only referenced by their local party affiliation. Most europeans dont even know what are the parties of the EP. Again, i m not sure there s even a procedure to remove the EC president

mrtksn 3y ago

What happens when you groom one commissioner exactly? For some reason, I feel like my sonars are detecting too much of submarines lately. Lots ot messaging on hypothetical dangers without much to show.

avianlyric 3y ago

> The EU commissioners are the biggest fault with the EU and it's disheartening how no one addresses that > but a reform that makes it more democratic was out of question. Because the existence of commissioners, and their strange position in the EU is both very deliberate, and incredibly important to the continued existence of the EU. The EU isn’t a federal government, it’s a super state entity that exists in an uneasy balance with governments of each member state. The consequence is that “more democracy” doesn’t help the EU, or make it more attractive (at least not to national governments, and they’re the ones that sign treaties). Balancing the powers of the individual EU states, with their elected governments and different democratic processes, with the powers of the EU as a super state entity is hard. No national government wants to hand off their own sovereign power to an external entity they have little direct influence over, so the EU commissioners exist. Their explicit purpose is to allow national governments to place a heavy thumb on the democratic scales in Brussels, to provide assurances to those national governments that their own state can’t be dictated to by other states within the EU who may hold different cultural values. The result of all this mess isn’t perfect, and is hard to understand as a random citizen. But simply getting rid of commissioners, and introducing “more democracy” which implicitly reduces the power of national governments, doesn’t provide a practical solution for the EU. The real solutions will be convoluted, nuanced, and slow to develop, that’s just the consequence of trying to get 27 very independent nation states to get along.

wwtrv 3y ago
> to provide assurances to those national governments that their own state can’t be dictated to by other states within the EU who may hold different cultural values. You might be thinking about the council and not the commission? While commissioners are appointed by national governments they "control" a fairly narrow area, e.g. if you get to appoint the commissioner for fisheries and agriculture he won't be able to influence healthcare policy that much.
- avianlyric 3y ago
  > You might be thinking about the council and not the commission? I am thinking of the commission, not the council. The EU parliament has no “right of initiative”, so it can’t propose new legislation itself, it can only work in legislation proposed by the EU commission. Which gives the commission a big chunk of soft power, because they effectively set the agenda of the EU parliament. The EU commission has both an executive role, which is the different ministries you mention, but also a legislative role, which is proposing legislation to the EU parliament. Which where an individual EU commissioner could have serious long term impact, as we’re seeing with these message scanning laws.