3 ms·
This is true. However there's a potential way to fix it, and it would only take one member state, no matter how small to start the landslide. And it's basically
by ajb 27d ago
This is true. However there's a potential way to fix it, and it would only take one member state, no matter how small to start the landslide. And it's basically the same thing that happened to the US Senate.
The Senate, like the Council of Ministers, was intended to represent the member states. Originally, Senators were appointed by state legislatures. A few states started to have direct primaries, with the legislative appointment amounting to ratification of the popular choice. Then this was made the way for every senator by the 17th amendment. (It took until 1913!)
The same thing could happen to the EU council of ministers. It's a little more obfuscated because the representative to the council of ministers is formally a delegate of the government of the EU member state. But, since the process is under the control of the member state, there's nothing stopping them being directly elected by the public of that EU country. They can simply decide that that's who they want to send. Unlike any other democratic reform of the EU, this doesn't require consensus among all member states (which in practice, means the political elites).
There would have to be some kind of groundswell of support for it in several nations, as otherwise the government of bigger nations would do everything to make an individual small nation regret it; unless they would pay some political cost. But if there is a movement to democratise the EU, this is the one move that doesn't need the permission of the incumbents.
- wbl 27d agoThe more democratic the EU the less sovereign legitimacy countries have. That's the tension that makes Euroskeptic parties oppose reforms.
- ajb 27d agoThere is a dilemma, but I don't think it's loss of legitimacy so much as authority. They are quite similar but not the same; an institution that loses authority but is still legitimate, and there is potential for it to regain authority (like the strategic concept of a "fleet in being"). But for many states, they have significantly greater power by virtue of being in the EU than they would without. Arguably, even the UK lost power by leaving.
- trinsic2 26d ago>But for many states, they have significantly greater power by virtue of being in the EU than they would without. Arguably, even the UK lost power by leaving. What kind of loss of power are you referring to?
- ajb 26d agoThe UK was one of the largest members of the EU, and as such had a substantial say over it's direction and policies; and as the EU is a major economic power, consequently that is power in the world as well. That is, it's government had this, as an "inside the room" participant. Power is often exercised by that means; in fact one definition of power is your having the means to sway others. For example, in the 90s the EU was debating whether to "deepen or widen", i e. to become more like a single state, or to admit more members. Germany and France led the faction that wanted to deepen, the UK, along with smaller allies, preferred to widen and admit more members from Eastern Europe. The UK's preference prevailed. Because this mostly happened in diplomatic negotiations, it's not so well known, the press thought that EU bureurocracy was a better story.
- trinsic2 25d agoThanks. Interesting points. Not sure I quite understand it, but I will think it over.
- philistine 27d agoLook to the Westminster system for the true solution to the Commission’s lack of accountability. Let the MEPs of each country vote on who amongst them will sit on the Commission.
- p_l 26d agoMember states will veto it because it will shift power from national governments directly into a separately voted parliament, changing the current approach of "EP is where we can drop someone if they lose national election as a reward for being good little soldier or to make them pay half the money to party coffers"