5 ms·

How is that true, if the body that nominates the European Commission _is_ elected?? By the same argument you could say UK or US or any other solidly democratic

How is that true, if the body that nominates the European Commission _is_ elected?? By the same argument you could say UK or US or any other solidly democratic is not democratic, because some commission or organisation is not directly, by the people, elected. (If you go for the direct election argument, the UK fares pretty badly BTW.)

mike_hearn 2y ago
The body that nominates the Commission isn't elected. In theory the Commission is mostly made up of civil servants who answer to commissioners, who are themselves nominated by each country's own government or civil service. Each commissioner has one area of responsibility only, and they answer to the head of the Commission who is their boss. So someone in the UK votes for a politician, who votes for a party leader, who appoints some ministers, and those ministers may or may not have much of a say in whoever gets nominated to be a commissioner - one of many. But there is at least a path there, even if long and indirect and the person your vote ends up influencing doesn't do anything important to your country or needs. In practice it doesn't actually work that way. In practice, the head of the Commission has veto power over the nominations. They aren't supposed to according to the treaties but the treaties are ignored. This means that in reality it's the head of the Commission who picks the Commissioners, because they can just reject anyone who isn't sufficiently aligned with their own agenda. So that leaves the question of how the head of the Commission is picked. Once again there is theory and practice. In theory, it's a decision of the heads of each state that they take together to select some candidates, and the Parliament then gets to vote for their preferred candidate. In practice ... nobody knows how the head is picked. Ursula von der Leyen was recently re-appointed despite being plagued by scandals and having a long career of failing upwards. Parliament was sidelined by giving them a voting list with only one candidate on it (her). Seek out an explanation of how she got this job and you won't find one because: 1. The heads of state don't talk about how they decide as a group. Is it a vote? Some sort of horse trading? Do they take it in turns? Are they even all able to take part? Nobody knows. 2. There's no record of which country voted for who, or why. 3. The process by which someone even becomes a candidate is unclear. 4. Because no head of state has any control over who gets onto the candidate list, they never talk on the campaign trail about how they will "vote" (assuming that's how it works) for who runs the EU. In other words, the process is entirely secret. The potential for corruption is unlimited. So when critics say the EU Commission is a bunch of unelected bureaucrats, they are right and those who argue otherwise here on HN are wrong. People who got their jobs via a process so opaque and indirect that how it functions can't be explained, not even in principle, cannot claim to be democratically selected.
- andrepd 2y ago
  You're absolutely right. You can also even just observe the following litmus test of democratic legitimacy: what percentage of people have even heard of Ursula von der Leyen (or most of her predecessors) before her appointment to the most powerful position in the EU? Contrast that with their country's president or prime minister and you will see why one is democratically legitimate and the other is not.
  - blitzar 2y ago
    The current prime minister of the uk was not elected for the position, they were given it by virtue of leading the party that won the most seats, the leadership of which was not voted for by the general public.
    - graemep 2y ago
      Yes, but people know who the head of the party was, and they knew who their local MP would be. People dislike changes of party leadership by the party in power between elections because they get someone they did not vote for. It is also only one layer removed from the people directly voted in. The EU Commissioners are another layer or too removed from who people voted for.
      - blitzar 2y ago
        EU commissioners have no voice of their own, they are simply a vassal of the elected government of their country.
- graemep 2y ago
  Definitely horse trading. If politicians can engage in horse trading they will.
  - pasc1878 2y ago
    That is their job to horse-trade
lmm 2y ago
> By the same argument you could say UK or US or any other solidly democratic is not democratic, because some commission or organisation is not directly, by the people, elected. It's a matter of degree rather than a binary. Representative democracy is a little less democratic than direct democracy. Elections every 20 years are a bit less democratic than elections every 5 years. Having the elected representatives appoint a head of state is a bit less democratic than electing one directly. The more layers of indirection you add, the more it becomes a bureaucratic oligarchy.
- data_maan 2y ago
  I agree. But my point is: Neither are UK or the US really clean democracies. In the US there is an entire system of courts that operate in a completely opaque way (eg FISA court). See my other post below for further examples. It seems here that because the EU likes to regulate more, people somehow perceive it as less democratic.
  - lmm 2y ago
    It's not so much that the EU regulates more as that it has very little accountability to the public. I think people perceive it as less democratic because it is less democratic. (Which in no way excuses the FISA court etc.).

mike_hearn 2y ago

The body that nominates the Commission isn't elected. In theory the Commission is mostly made up of civil servants who answer to commissioners, who are themselves nominated by each country's own government or civil service. Each commissioner has one area of responsibility only, and they answer to the head of the Commission who is their boss. So someone in the UK votes for a politician, who votes for a party leader, who appoints some ministers, and those ministers may or may not have much of a say in whoever gets nominated to be a commissioner - one of many. But there is at least a path there, even if long and indirect and the person your vote ends up influencing doesn't do anything important to your country or needs. In practice it doesn't actually work that way. In practice, the head of the Commission has veto power over the nominations. They aren't supposed to according to the treaties but the treaties are ignored. This means that in reality it's the head of the Commission who picks the Commissioners, because they can just reject anyone who isn't sufficiently aligned with their own agenda. So that leaves the question of how the head of the Commission is picked. Once again there is theory and practice. In theory, it's a decision of the heads of each state that they take together to select some candidates, and the Parliament then gets to vote for their preferred candidate. In practice ... nobody knows how the head is picked. Ursula von der Leyen was recently re-appointed despite being plagued by scandals and having a long career of failing upwards. Parliament was sidelined by giving them a voting list with only one candidate on it (her). Seek out an explanation of how she got this job and you won't find one because: 1. The heads of state don't talk about how they decide as a group. Is it a vote? Some sort of horse trading? Do they take it in turns? Are they even all able to take part? Nobody knows. 2. There's no record of which country voted for who, or why. 3. The process by which someone even becomes a candidate is unclear. 4. Because no head of state has any control over who gets onto the candidate list, they never talk on the campaign trail about how they will "vote" (assuming that's how it works) for who runs the EU. In other words, the process is entirely secret. The potential for corruption is unlimited. So when critics say the EU Commission is a bunch of unelected bureaucrats, they are right and those who argue otherwise here on HN are wrong. People who got their jobs via a process so opaque and indirect that how it functions can't be explained, not even in principle, cannot claim to be democratically selected.

andrepd 2y ago
You're absolutely right. You can also even just observe the following litmus test of democratic legitimacy: what percentage of people have even heard of Ursula von der Leyen (or most of her predecessors) before her appointment to the most powerful position in the EU? Contrast that with their country's president or prime minister and you will see why one is democratically legitimate and the other is not.
- blitzar 2y ago
  The current prime minister of the uk was not elected for the position, they were given it by virtue of leading the party that won the most seats, the leadership of which was not voted for by the general public.
  - graemep 2y ago
    Yes, but people know who the head of the party was, and they knew who their local MP would be. People dislike changes of party leadership by the party in power between elections because they get someone they did not vote for. It is also only one layer removed from the people directly voted in. The EU Commissioners are another layer or too removed from who people voted for.
    - blitzar 2y ago
      EU commissioners have no voice of their own, they are simply a vassal of the elected government of their country.
graemep 2y ago
Definitely horse trading. If politicians can engage in horse trading they will.
- pasc1878 2y ago
  That is their job to horse-trade

lmm 2y ago

> By the same argument you could say UK or US or any other solidly democratic is not democratic, because some commission or organisation is not directly, by the people, elected. It's a matter of degree rather than a binary. Representative democracy is a little less democratic than direct democracy. Elections every 20 years are a bit less democratic than elections every 5 years. Having the elected representatives appoint a head of state is a bit less democratic than electing one directly. The more layers of indirection you add, the more it becomes a bureaucratic oligarchy.

data_maan 2y ago
I agree. But my point is: Neither are UK or the US really clean democracies. In the US there is an entire system of courts that operate in a completely opaque way (eg FISA court). See my other post below for further examples. It seems here that because the EU likes to regulate more, people somehow perceive it as less democratic.
- lmm 2y ago
  It's not so much that the EU regulates more as that it has very little accountability to the public. I think people perceive it as less democratic because it is less democratic. (Which in no way excuses the FISA court etc.).