4 ms·

> this reduces the elected MEP’s role to basically gatekeeping, allowing or denying legislative proposals formulated by th Commission, MEPs are pretty much jus

> 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.

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.