3 ms·

> The commission is approved by parliament and suggested by the governments of the individual member states. The EU parliament approval is done in secret. So

> The commission is approved by parliament and suggested by the governments of the individual member states. The EU parliament approval is done in secret. So you can't hold responsible your elected official for supporting someone you wouldn't support. What is the point of having EU Commisars selected in secrecy? What is the point of having EU Commissars elections where there is only one candidate? Why they can't simply follow standard democratic procedures? Why all the secrecy and elections over one-candidate? What is it? An USSR polit-biuro?

claudius 12y ago
The secrecy is a fair point, but both secret votes and one-candidate votes are fairly common e.g. in Germany: both the chancellor and the prime ministers of individual states are voted on in secret in their respective parliaments (Bundes- resp. Landtag). There is also always only one candidate which either receives 50%+1 approval (and then becomes the new chancellor/prime minister) or fails and can either try again or make way for someone else. I did not perceive this system as particularly non-democratic, especially since the actual MPs are elected in a decent way (not FPTP nor that strange electoral college used in US president elections).
- justnotsure 12y ago
  OK, I agree it all looks kosher, but here is the kicker: compare powers that the EU Parlament has with Bundestag powers. On another note the whole EU seems to be using German solutions that are just not acceptable for Brits or their economy and this is another major issue with the EU. I.e. why not to have anglosaxon model of transparency and democratic process? It's not German, so forget it? Well, here you have exactly why other nations might not like it -- how would you like to be forced using electoral college because US wishes so? You see the same way Brits might not like being forced using secretive German model. It is as strange to them as the electoral college is to you! Other notes on democracy and the EU: 1. What is that thing with voting over and over again till they get YES, and once they have it there are no referendums in sight for 10, 20, 30 years? I.e. in the UK they voted for Common Markets in 1970s -- and based on that YES vote they ended up in political union with countries like Germany, having open borders for the whole of Eastern Europe for more than a decade. What does a vote casted for common markets in 1970s has to do with having millions of immigratans in 2014 or anti-City regulations imposed; all the green craze? Who thought about this in 1970s? Why it is such a big deal to have democratic process involved for these phenomenons? 2. 70% of laws in the UK are introduced by EU Commission. Whoever Brits vote-in to the offices of London Government or EU Parlament -- doesn't matter. These 70% of laws are introduced yearly without democratic process. Usually by German-name sounding Commissars. Who think about production for Germany first and trade for UK with places like Australia or Canada -- not at all. It would make much more sense for a country like UK to have political union with Australia or Canada. They share language, customs, political solution and the Queen. Germany doesn't share any of these with UK. So, why bother living in the political union with them under their influence?

claudius 12y ago

The secrecy is a fair point, but both secret votes and one-candidate votes are fairly common e.g. in Germany: both the chancellor and the prime ministers of individual states are voted on in secret in their respective parliaments (Bundes- resp. Landtag). There is also always only one candidate which either receives 50%+1 approval (and then becomes the new chancellor/prime minister) or fails and can either try again or make way for someone else. I did not perceive this system as particularly non-democratic, especially since the actual MPs are elected in a decent way (not FPTP nor that strange electoral college used in US president elections).

justnotsure 12y ago
OK, I agree it all looks kosher, but here is the kicker: compare powers that the EU Parlament has with Bundestag powers. On another note the whole EU seems to be using German solutions that are just not acceptable for Brits or their economy and this is another major issue with the EU. I.e. why not to have anglosaxon model of transparency and democratic process? It's not German, so forget it? Well, here you have exactly why other nations might not like it -- how would you like to be forced using electoral college because US wishes so? You see the same way Brits might not like being forced using secretive German model. It is as strange to them as the electoral college is to you! Other notes on democracy and the EU: 1. What is that thing with voting over and over again till they get YES, and once they have it there are no referendums in sight for 10, 20, 30 years? I.e. in the UK they voted for Common Markets in 1970s -- and based on that YES vote they ended up in political union with countries like Germany, having open borders for the whole of Eastern Europe for more than a decade. What does a vote casted for common markets in 1970s has to do with having millions of immigratans in 2014 or anti-City regulations imposed; all the green craze? Who thought about this in 1970s? Why it is such a big deal to have democratic process involved for these phenomenons? 2. 70% of laws in the UK are introduced by EU Commission. Whoever Brits vote-in to the offices of London Government or EU Parlament -- doesn't matter. These 70% of laws are introduced yearly without democratic process. Usually by German-name sounding Commissars. Who think about production for Germany first and trade for UK with places like Australia or Canada -- not at all. It would make much more sense for a country like UK to have political union with Australia or Canada. They share language, customs, political solution and the Queen. Germany doesn't share any of these with UK. So, why bother living in the political union with them under their influence?