4 ms·
But the governments appoint the commission. That’s democratic. It’s one or two steps of indirection (and you could make a decent argument that two steps of ind
by arrrg 12y ago
But the governments appoint the commission. That’s democratic.
It’s one or two steps of indirection (and you could make a decent argument that two steps of indirection are too many), but that doesn’t make it undemocratic.
This indirection isn’t uncommon in democratic systems. For example, the German chancellor is only voted into office indirectly by parliament. She can then appoint any ministers she wants, no confirmation needed by anyone. No one would call Germany undemocratic.
The EU commission just works similarly, only that in its case elected governments are making the appointments, though they have to additionally be confirmed by the EU parliament.
I’m all for structuring it differently, but to call it undemocratic is just wrong. Its structure is in many ways problematic, but that’s nothing that can’t be fixed.
Yes, the parliament should get the right to initiate laws, of course. But your look on this is a bit too weird.
- beejiu 12y agoHaving 740 million people represented by 24 councillors is not democratic. Even if they are elected in "second order" by our elected politicians, one person could not possibly fairly represent its country's citizens. We already have a first past the post system in the UK, so this is essential the 'squared' form of that. The House of Commons has a mixture of different politicians and parties representing its electorate. The single MEP, however, only represents the majority government so there is no diversity of opinion in the commission. The definition of democracy is representation of the population, not representation of the 51%. What's the point of having 750 MEPs if they can only approve sanitised legislation?
- arrrg 12y agoGiving more powers to the parliament is not very feasible, since all the EU skeptics are against that … I want it.