5 ms·

When has the EU ever been democratic? Brussels has lost, but ignored every referendum for the last 20 years.

by fdfgyu 2y ago

generic92034 2y ago
That stance ("ever been democratic") is a bit too strong for my taste. There are definitely issues with the EU parliament having no rights to propose laws or the amount of indirection between voters and some powerful institutions. But calling the EU not being democratic is going too far, in my eyes. Especially considering the setup as a confederation of sovereign countries, so the comparison to individual countries' systems is problematic.
- ThalesX 2y ago
  > But calling the EU not being democratic is going too far I'm an EU citizen. I have minimal saying in who our commissioner is and what members of the cabinet get chosen. I have a vote which I give to whatever party. After that, the vote for commissioner is secret; I have no idea who voted for what. After that, the negociations for the cabinet are secret; I have no idea what the criteria are and what the plans are. I'm not putting us in the bucket of non-democracy just yet but I don't feel it's that far.
  - generic92034 2y ago
    So we are in complete agreement.
  - faggotbreath 2y ago
    [dead]
  - medstrom 2y ago
    Is this different from your own government?
    - ThalesX 2y ago
      Yes, in that we find out what we voted for after the vote instead of before.
  - buildfocus 2y ago
    Is this not similar to ministerial roles and civil servant positions in most governments? You don't vote for the commissioners directly, but your elected representative (leader of your government) does, and that's your path to express preferences & drive accountability. If you don't like the selection, take it up with them. In the UK for example, the people elect members of parliament as their representatives, but MPs choose their party leaders, and the governing party leadership chooses its ministers without any public consultation or debate. What's the difference?
    - timrichard 2y ago
      In the UK, politicians will often U-turn if they sense that a policy will make them unpopular and make the next election harder to fight. Governments can and do get punished on polling day every five years. Sunak paid for his unpopularity and the record of his government. Could any EU voters do anything about Ursula getting a second term? (and once again she was the only name on the ballot and then only just scraped through). The EU commission is not concerned with democratic accountability. Power is concentrated in the Commission and Council. There's a very weak link back to the electorate, but it's homeopathic democracy.
      - buildfocus 2y ago
        Again, this is not different to local democratic processes. Voters typically cannot directly stop somebody being named leader of their party or given a specific role within government for multiple terms. If you dislike them, you pressure your elected representative to change that. Almost all representative democracy is accountability through a representative, not directly through control of government internals & positions.
        timrichard 2y ago
        Again, my point was that even though we only have one direct representative, the governing party as a whole will be punished in the next election if they become deeply unpopular. If your rulemakers are immune to voter displeasure, it isn't a healthy democracy. You said "if you dislike them, you pressure your elected representative to change that". If as an EU citizen you are angry with the performance and direction of Ursula and the Commission, there isn't a damn thing you can do about it.
  - hcfman 2y ago
    In a democracy is it possible for a government to commit illegal things and get away with it simply by ignoring the complaints, filed police charges etc? In a democracy the government as well are supposed to be accountable by the rule of law. As they are not it is a failed democracy.
  - diggan 2y ago
    This is generally called "representative democracy" and is mostly what people talk about when they talk about "democracy" in public conversations. The alternative is "direct democracy" and while it exists (like in Switzerland), it isn't nearly as common, sadly. But representative democracy still is democracy.
    - fdfgyu 2y ago
      This is not representative democracy. This is, at best, buffered representative democracy. Arcane electoral rules make for weak representatives who gather power by making back room deals. The real (but not constitutional) power lies in the commission that is appointed, not elected, and has been vacuuming power to itself in increasing amounts.
  - ajb 2y ago
    Are you aware of the history of the US Senate? It had exactly the same problem. Senators were appointed by the political elite of each state. But, once one or two states decided to elect their senator, it was game over. The other states gave up, and now all the senators are elected. It's true that both the commission and (perhaps even more powerful) the council of ministers are not democratic. But this is in the hands of each individual country to change. And it's national level politicians who are currently the obstacle. All find it easier to blame the EU than to take responsibility for change. But if one country takes action to increase , even a small one, the public in the others will realise they all can.
  - rbanffy 2y ago
    > I have minimal saying in who our commissioner is and what members of the cabinet get chosen. We get to vote for our country representatives, who then vote for the MEPs. I don't think there is any EU-wide rule that prevents the MEP nomination process from being open - that'd be country-specific legislation.
    - ThalesX 2y ago
      I'm not talking about MEPs. The commissioner is not a country representative, I'm talking about the head of the European Commission, miss Ursula von der Leyen as it currently stands. There is no rule preventing it from being open, there is also no rule forcing it to being open.
      - rbanffy 2y ago
        Your MEPs could certainly propose that.
- gillesjacobs 2y ago
  > But calling the EU not being democratic is going too far Unelected commissioners draft laws, while elected MEPs rubber-stamp with barely any changes. The Council's backroom deals make smoke-filled rooms look transparent. Try explaining the Ordinary Legislative Procedure to the average voter - you can't. And let's not forget the ritual of ignoring referendums that don't align with the "ever closer union" mantra. When lobbyists have more sway than citizens, you've got a problem. The EU is a masterclass in obfuscating accountability behind layers of bureaucracy. It's democracy laundering, plain and simple.
  - generic92034 2y ago
    The commissioners are not elected directly by the populace, just like ministers in any government I know of are not directly elected by the populace (and other powerful officials, too). The level of indirection is greater in a confederation of countries compared to a single country. The MEP usually do not "rubber-stamp with barely any changes". There often is considerable change applied to the original proposals, by the MEP negotiating. What really is missing is the right to propose laws for the EP. But for that you would need to agree about a way tighter EU integration of the member countries, which currently seems highly unlikely in the given political climate. Again, it is way easier organizing a democratic system in a single nation state than in a confederation of sovereign countries with sometimes very different national systems and views. And I am not saying that to brush over the democratic deficit of the current EU implementation, but just to acknowledge the level of difficulty.
    - gillesjacobs 2y ago
      You hit upon the "locality principle of representative democracy": the more non-local elected representatives are in their excertion of power, the less oversight by the electorate. EU Law is seperated from the electorate by multiple layers: electorate > national parties > national parliament > national government > Council of the EU > European Parliament > European Commission > EU law Each layer dilutes democratic input and accountability. By the time you reach EU law, the average voter's influence is homeopathic at best. Localists would argue since a federation is highly non-local it shouldn't even be attempted because it leads inherently to non-representative centralisation of power. This multi-layered separation explains why EU citizens feel disconnected from Brussels decision-making. It's a game of democratic telephone where the message gets garbled with each step and the centralist power machine inserts its own interests.
consp 2y ago
Remind me please what eu wide referendum was ignored?
- docdeek 2y ago
  All of them? None of them? To my knowledge there have been plenty of referendums regarding the EU over the last half century but there has not been a single EU-wide referendum. There’s a list here (pp.5-6) of plenty of them which clearly notes that some EU countries have not held referendums. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/IDAN/2022/729358/EPRS_IDA(2022)729358_EN.pdf https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/IDAN/2022/7293... Perhaps the other commenter was refering to the French, Dutch, and Irish EU Constitution referendums that all failed. In the case of the two former members, they never went back to the people and found an alternate way to get what the EU wanted into practice. In the case of the Irish, they voted again until, it seems, they voted for the ‘right’ side of the issue.
  - timrichard 2y ago
    > Perhaps the other commenter was refering to the French, Dutch, and Irish EU Constitution referendums that all failed. In the case of the two former members, they never went back to the people and found an alternate way to get what the EU wanted into practice. In the case of the Irish, they voted again until, it seems, they voted for the ‘right’ side of the issue. And the playbook was almost followed in the UK following Brexit. For three years politicians and various interests called for a "confirmatory vote", or a "peoples' vote" (as if people didn't vote the first time round).
- fdfgyu 2y ago
  Who said EU wide? The rules are clear, changes in EU rules must be unanimous. Typically, governments agree to changes affecting their countries' constitutions and sovereignty w/out consulting voters (how democratic! /s). Occasionally a government will allow a vote. And when they lose, they ignore the vote.
hcfman 2y ago
Precisely. The Netherlands has this way of fighting organisated crime that they call an intervention. This is organised by groups of government organisations like the police, council etc. If they want to do illegal things they use weak civilian individuals, likely people they were able blackmail. There are no rules as to what an intervention can be and zero accountability. They will and have obstructed justice all the way to the courts, loosing evidence etc from the illegal activities their proxies have done. Welcome to the new world. Apparently Belgium and Germany now also use this approach.
raverbashing 2y ago
[flagged]

When has the EU ever been democratic? Brussels has lost, but ignored every referendum for the last 20 years.

by fdfgyu 2y ago

When has the EU ever been democratic? Brussels has lost, but ignored every referendum for the last 20 years.

generic92034 2y ago

That stance ("ever been democratic") is a bit too strong for my taste. There are definitely issues with the EU parliament having no rights to propose laws or the amount of indirection between voters and some powerful institutions. But calling the EU not being democratic is going too far, in my eyes. Especially considering the setup as a confederation of sovereign countries, so the comparison to individual countries' systems is problematic.

ThalesX 2y ago
> But calling the EU not being democratic is going too far I'm an EU citizen. I have minimal saying in who our commissioner is and what members of the cabinet get chosen. I have a vote which I give to whatever party. After that, the vote for commissioner is secret; I have no idea who voted for what. After that, the negociations for the cabinet are secret; I have no idea what the criteria are and what the plans are. I'm not putting us in the bucket of non-democracy just yet but I don't feel it's that far.
- generic92034 2y ago
  So we are in complete agreement.
- faggotbreath 2y ago
  [dead]
- medstrom 2y ago
  Is this different from your own government?
  - ThalesX 2y ago
    Yes, in that we find out what we voted for after the vote instead of before.
- buildfocus 2y ago
  Is this not similar to ministerial roles and civil servant positions in most governments? You don't vote for the commissioners directly, but your elected representative (leader of your government) does, and that's your path to express preferences & drive accountability. If you don't like the selection, take it up with them. In the UK for example, the people elect members of parliament as their representatives, but MPs choose their party leaders, and the governing party leadership chooses its ministers without any public consultation or debate. What's the difference?
  - timrichard 2y ago
    In the UK, politicians will often U-turn if they sense that a policy will make them unpopular and make the next election harder to fight. Governments can and do get punished on polling day every five years. Sunak paid for his unpopularity and the record of his government. Could any EU voters do anything about Ursula getting a second term? (and once again she was the only name on the ballot and then only just scraped through). The EU commission is not concerned with democratic accountability. Power is concentrated in the Commission and Council. There's a very weak link back to the electorate, but it's homeopathic democracy.
    - buildfocus 2y ago
      Again, this is not different to local democratic processes. Voters typically cannot directly stop somebody being named leader of their party or given a specific role within government for multiple terms. If you dislike them, you pressure your elected representative to change that. Almost all representative democracy is accountability through a representative, not directly through control of government internals & positions.
      - timrichard 2y ago
        Again, my point was that even though we only have one direct representative, the governing party as a whole will be punished in the next election if they become deeply unpopular. If your rulemakers are immune to voter displeasure, it isn't a healthy democracy. You said "if you dislike them, you pressure your elected representative to change that". If as an EU citizen you are angry with the performance and direction of Ursula and the Commission, there isn't a damn thing you can do about it.
- hcfman 2y ago
  In a democracy is it possible for a government to commit illegal things and get away with it simply by ignoring the complaints, filed police charges etc? In a democracy the government as well are supposed to be accountable by the rule of law. As they are not it is a failed democracy.
- diggan 2y ago
  This is generally called "representative democracy" and is mostly what people talk about when they talk about "democracy" in public conversations. The alternative is "direct democracy" and while it exists (like in Switzerland), it isn't nearly as common, sadly. But representative democracy still is democracy.
  - fdfgyu 2y ago
    This is not representative democracy. This is, at best, buffered representative democracy. Arcane electoral rules make for weak representatives who gather power by making back room deals. The real (but not constitutional) power lies in the commission that is appointed, not elected, and has been vacuuming power to itself in increasing amounts.
- ajb 2y ago
  Are you aware of the history of the US Senate? It had exactly the same problem. Senators were appointed by the political elite of each state. But, once one or two states decided to elect their senator, it was game over. The other states gave up, and now all the senators are elected. It's true that both the commission and (perhaps even more powerful) the council of ministers are not democratic. But this is in the hands of each individual country to change. And it's national level politicians who are currently the obstacle. All find it easier to blame the EU than to take responsibility for change. But if one country takes action to increase , even a small one, the public in the others will realise they all can.
- rbanffy 2y ago
  > I have minimal saying in who our commissioner is and what members of the cabinet get chosen. We get to vote for our country representatives, who then vote for the MEPs. I don't think there is any EU-wide rule that prevents the MEP nomination process from being open - that'd be country-specific legislation.
  - ThalesX 2y ago
    I'm not talking about MEPs. The commissioner is not a country representative, I'm talking about the head of the European Commission, miss Ursula von der Leyen as it currently stands. There is no rule preventing it from being open, there is also no rule forcing it to being open.
    - rbanffy 2y ago
      Your MEPs could certainly propose that.
gillesjacobs 2y ago
> But calling the EU not being democratic is going too far Unelected commissioners draft laws, while elected MEPs rubber-stamp with barely any changes. The Council's backroom deals make smoke-filled rooms look transparent. Try explaining the Ordinary Legislative Procedure to the average voter - you can't. And let's not forget the ritual of ignoring referendums that don't align with the "ever closer union" mantra. When lobbyists have more sway than citizens, you've got a problem. The EU is a masterclass in obfuscating accountability behind layers of bureaucracy. It's democracy laundering, plain and simple.
- generic92034 2y ago
  The commissioners are not elected directly by the populace, just like ministers in any government I know of are not directly elected by the populace (and other powerful officials, too). The level of indirection is greater in a confederation of countries compared to a single country. The MEP usually do not "rubber-stamp with barely any changes". There often is considerable change applied to the original proposals, by the MEP negotiating. What really is missing is the right to propose laws for the EP. But for that you would need to agree about a way tighter EU integration of the member countries, which currently seems highly unlikely in the given political climate. Again, it is way easier organizing a democratic system in a single nation state than in a confederation of sovereign countries with sometimes very different national systems and views. And I am not saying that to brush over the democratic deficit of the current EU implementation, but just to acknowledge the level of difficulty.
  - gillesjacobs 2y ago
    You hit upon the "locality principle of representative democracy": the more non-local elected representatives are in their excertion of power, the less oversight by the electorate. EU Law is seperated from the electorate by multiple layers: electorate > national parties > national parliament > national government > Council of the EU > European Parliament > European Commission > EU law Each layer dilutes democratic input and accountability. By the time you reach EU law, the average voter's influence is homeopathic at best. Localists would argue since a federation is highly non-local it shouldn't even be attempted because it leads inherently to non-representative centralisation of power. This multi-layered separation explains why EU citizens feel disconnected from Brussels decision-making. It's a game of democratic telephone where the message gets garbled with each step and the centralist power machine inserts its own interests.

consp 2y ago

Remind me please what eu wide referendum was ignored?

docdeek 2y ago
All of them? None of them? To my knowledge there have been plenty of referendums regarding the EU over the last half century but there has not been a single EU-wide referendum. There’s a list here (pp.5-6) of plenty of them which clearly notes that some EU countries have not held referendums. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/IDAN/2022/729358/EPRS_IDA(2022)729358_EN.pdf https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/IDAN/2022/7293... Perhaps the other commenter was refering to the French, Dutch, and Irish EU Constitution referendums that all failed. In the case of the two former members, they never went back to the people and found an alternate way to get what the EU wanted into practice. In the case of the Irish, they voted again until, it seems, they voted for the ‘right’ side of the issue.
- timrichard 2y ago
  > Perhaps the other commenter was refering to the French, Dutch, and Irish EU Constitution referendums that all failed. In the case of the two former members, they never went back to the people and found an alternate way to get what the EU wanted into practice. In the case of the Irish, they voted again until, it seems, they voted for the ‘right’ side of the issue. And the playbook was almost followed in the UK following Brexit. For three years politicians and various interests called for a "confirmatory vote", or a "peoples' vote" (as if people didn't vote the first time round).
fdfgyu 2y ago
Who said EU wide? The rules are clear, changes in EU rules must be unanimous. Typically, governments agree to changes affecting their countries' constitutions and sovereignty w/out consulting voters (how democratic! /s). Occasionally a government will allow a vote. And when they lose, they ignore the vote.

hcfman 2y ago

Precisely. The Netherlands has this way of fighting organisated crime that they call an intervention. This is organised by groups of government organisations like the police, council etc. If they want to do illegal things they use weak civilian individuals, likely people they were able blackmail. There are no rules as to what an intervention can be and zero accountability. They will and have obstructed justice all the way to the courts, loosing evidence etc from the illegal activities their proxies have done. Welcome to the new world. Apparently Belgium and Germany now also use this approach.

raverbashing 2y ago

[flagged]