5 ms·

Governors in the US aren't formally the main source of federal legislative proposals, nor do they represent their states at the federal level in any formal way.

Governors in the US aren't formally the main source of federal legislative proposals, nor do they represent their states at the federal level in any formal way. They can propose legislation in the same sense that any citizen can, but a petition signed by all 50 of them would have zero legal force in terms of requiring Congress to take anything up. The Commission is a lot more integrated into the process. Governors of US states are also directly elected, and have to be careful about annoying the voters too much... and it would be noticed if each of them individually signed onto something like you suggest. It'd be even more noticed if they did it over and over every year. Commissioners are at one or two levels of appointed remove, and are also somewhat sheltered by the Commision as a collective. They can more easily get away with repeatedly raising unpopular proposals until they manage to wear everybody down and move the Overton window.

throw46365 2y ago
> but a petition signed by all 50 of them would have zero legal force in terms of requiring Congress to take anything up. Well it's not an exact analogy as I say; I edited a bit for clarity earlier too. But as it goes, I'm not sure the Commission can compel the Parliament to take up legislation anyway. The fact that they usually get their way is more due to realpolitik; I'm pretty sure a formalised gathering of delegates of US states would ultimately be able to wear down enough senators and representatives to get legislation drafted. The EU system is a bit more realpolitik than the US system, at this point; the USA has abandoned realpolitik except for the times when the House majority wants to undermine their own speaker.
matthewdgreen 2y ago
The EU Parliament also can’t propose legislation, only the EU Commission can. This reduces the elected MEP’s role to basically gatekeeping, allowing or denying legislative proposals formulated by th Commission, who have shown themselves to be utterly relentless in their pursuit of this particular issue. That dramatically changes the balance of power when you compare it with the US Congress. You have to imagine the Commission uses this power to set the legislative priorities (and hence the re-election chances for MEPs). Imagine if the only way to pass some legislation of vital importance to you constituents was to bargain with the Commission so they would propose it? Presumably they’d get a lot of their legislative priorities passed even if no voter really wanted them.
- throw46365 2y ago
  > this reduces the elected MEP’s role to basically gatekeeping, allowing or denying legislative proposals formulated by th Commission, MEPs are pretty much just like MPs in the British parliament. They are not just rubber-stamp voters of policies from the Commission. They can propose amendments. (Misrepresentation of this fact is a lot of why Brexit happened, if you ask me.) The challenge is that the EU Council (essentially usually acting as an intermediate drafting body between the Commission and the Parliament, I think?) has to agree those changes too. AFAIK just as the Parliament has to agree amendments made by the Council. If they don't agree, the law doesn't go forward, as far as I understand it. ETA: this is pretty useful: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/infographic/legislative-procedure/index_en.html https://www.europarl.europa.eu/infographic/legislative-proce... I'm not sure it captures the path much legislation seems to me to take in practice (where a lot of the drafting energy is actually spent in the Council), but you can see parallels to the UK and US processes throughout it.
  - Hizonner 2y ago
    > MEPs are pretty much just like MPs in the British parliament. They are not just rubber-stamp voters of policies from the Commission. Having moved from the US to a Westminster country, I have to say that even British MPs can look an awful lot like rubber-stamp voters. The system is set up to punish them severely if they dare to seriously endanger anything the cabinet wants. And MEPs are even weaker. It matters if (what amounts to) the executive can continuously badger and harry the Parliament to get what it wants, whether all at once or bit by bit... while there's no mechanism at all for the Parliament to spontaneously move the ratchet the other way.
    - throw46365 2y ago
      > Having moved from the US to a Westminster country, I have to say that even British MPs can look an awful lot like rubber-stamp voters. The system is set up to punish them severely if they dare to seriously endanger anything the cabinet wants. Not really. Parliament inflicts major defeats and signficant amendments quite a lot, several times a decade. Which is a lot. And you have to understand that there is implicit context here, which is that Parliament really doesn't like having the piss taken out of it, doesn't accept disrespect, and hasn't for several hundred years. It does take a long view of the British parliament to understand how the longstanding collective spirit of parliament as an entity, a community, influences which legislation government even tries to put before it. There are some notable exceptions (particularly in this parliament) but as a general rule, ministers don't have the whipping power they tend to think they have. What you see is a series of acquiescences, but what government sees is a process/approach that rules out things they would want to do that they won't ever get through parliament. Select committees in particular are brutal. We are heading towards a period of time where the government of the day is going to have a lot more power, and what you will see is paradoxical: longstanding members on the back benches of the government side will become even more vocal about the importance of respecting parliament. It's amazing the way it happens, and it is often underwritten by a little bitterness about not getting a ministerial or PPS job that becomes a balancing force.

throw46365 2y ago

> but a petition signed by all 50 of them would have zero legal force in terms of requiring Congress to take anything up. Well it's not an exact analogy as I say; I edited a bit for clarity earlier too. But as it goes, I'm not sure the Commission can compel the Parliament to take up legislation anyway. The fact that they usually get their way is more due to realpolitik; I'm pretty sure a formalised gathering of delegates of US states would ultimately be able to wear down enough senators and representatives to get legislation drafted. The EU system is a bit more realpolitik than the US system, at this point; the USA has abandoned realpolitik except for the times when the House majority wants to undermine their own speaker.

matthewdgreen 2y ago

The EU Parliament also can’t propose legislation, only the EU Commission can. This reduces the elected MEP’s role to basically gatekeeping, allowing or denying legislative proposals formulated by th Commission, who have shown themselves to be utterly relentless in their pursuit of this particular issue. That dramatically changes the balance of power when you compare it with the US Congress. You have to imagine the Commission uses this power to set the legislative priorities (and hence the re-election chances for MEPs). Imagine if the only way to pass some legislation of vital importance to you constituents was to bargain with the Commission so they would propose it? Presumably they’d get a lot of their legislative priorities passed even if no voter really wanted them.

throw46365 2y ago
> this reduces the elected MEP’s role to basically gatekeeping, allowing or denying legislative proposals formulated by th Commission, MEPs are pretty much just like MPs in the British parliament. They are not just rubber-stamp voters of policies from the Commission. They can propose amendments. (Misrepresentation of this fact is a lot of why Brexit happened, if you ask me.) The challenge is that the EU Council (essentially usually acting as an intermediate drafting body between the Commission and the Parliament, I think?) has to agree those changes too. AFAIK just as the Parliament has to agree amendments made by the Council. If they don't agree, the law doesn't go forward, as far as I understand it. ETA: this is pretty useful: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/infographic/legislative-procedure/index_en.html https://www.europarl.europa.eu/infographic/legislative-proce... I'm not sure it captures the path much legislation seems to me to take in practice (where a lot of the drafting energy is actually spent in the Council), but you can see parallels to the UK and US processes throughout it.
- Hizonner 2y ago
  > MEPs are pretty much just like MPs in the British parliament. They are not just rubber-stamp voters of policies from the Commission. Having moved from the US to a Westminster country, I have to say that even British MPs can look an awful lot like rubber-stamp voters. The system is set up to punish them severely if they dare to seriously endanger anything the cabinet wants. And MEPs are even weaker. It matters if (what amounts to) the executive can continuously badger and harry the Parliament to get what it wants, whether all at once or bit by bit... while there's no mechanism at all for the Parliament to spontaneously move the ratchet the other way.
  - throw46365 2y ago
    > Having moved from the US to a Westminster country, I have to say that even British MPs can look an awful lot like rubber-stamp voters. The system is set up to punish them severely if they dare to seriously endanger anything the cabinet wants. Not really. Parliament inflicts major defeats and signficant amendments quite a lot, several times a decade. Which is a lot. And you have to understand that there is implicit context here, which is that Parliament really doesn't like having the piss taken out of it, doesn't accept disrespect, and hasn't for several hundred years. It does take a long view of the British parliament to understand how the longstanding collective spirit of parliament as an entity, a community, influences which legislation government even tries to put before it. There are some notable exceptions (particularly in this parliament) but as a general rule, ministers don't have the whipping power they tend to think they have. What you see is a series of acquiescences, but what government sees is a process/approach that rules out things they would want to do that they won't ever get through parliament. Select committees in particular are brutal. We are heading towards a period of time where the government of the day is going to have a lot more power, and what you will see is paradoxical: longstanding members on the back benches of the government side will become even more vocal about the importance of respecting parliament. It's amazing the way it happens, and it is often underwritten by a little bitterness about not getting a ministerial or PPS job that becomes a balancing force.