The EU is not democratic at all. Especially because the unelected European Commission has executive and legislative power.
The parliament only has veto rights and even at that it spectacularly fails as Art. 17 shows.
The whole thing was a backroom deal between Germany (which wants gas from Russia) and France (which apparently really likes ultra restrictive Copyright). We would have the same result without this fake theater of the simulated democracy facade. Time to abolish the EU.
European Commissioners are selected by natioanl governments.
The president of the commission is voted for by the people (Juncker received the most votes in 2014)
Does America vote for the secretary of transportation?
In theory under say a westminster system MPs can take control. This is almost unprecedented until last night. Even when they do push non-controversial laws (Private Member bills, like the upskirting one recently), they're usually stopped.
So the difference seems to be
1) The president of the EU commission is effectively elected by the people. Same as the prime minister (except for May, Brown, Major and I think Callahagn who were simply appointed on their first attempts. So 3 of the last 7 were elected)
2) The UK prime minister has a selection of about 1400 people to select from when appointing the executive (members of commons and lords). There's no comfirmation from parliament. The US President can appoint anyone, with confirmation from the senate. The EU commission president gets to appoint from candidates pre-selected by the EU heads of government, and those appointments have to be confirmed by the MEPs.
3) The UK parliament can in theory (but rarely in practice) pass laws. The EU parliament can't, however through the committees they seem to have more power to make changes than in the UK.
The UK, US and EU are all different, but they are all democracies.
It might be illuminating to talk about what it meant for Juncker to receive the most votes in 2014. First up, there are no EU-wide political parties, just shifting alliances of local national parties, none of which have more than 30% of the MEPs. For the 2014 elections, they came to a deal where the alliance with the most MEPs got their choice as President of the European Commission. (Which is not how it's supposed to work, but let's put that aside for a moment.)
Now, pretty much no-one voted for MEPs based on which alliance they were part of - they voted based on party, because it's the parties that decide what platform their MEPs are running on and that are the ballot. Not only that, which alliance was bigger was pretty arbitrary and depended almost entirely on how the backroom deals between the various parties had gone. Oh, and there's some justified suspicion that this was all specifically set up to get Juncker in: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/27/eu-democratic-... (He then rewarded one of the guys who helped him manage this with an extremely shady permanent appointment as the head of the EU civil service.)
This is very different from the UK system, where each party and its leader agrees on their platform for the next election, publishes it as a manifesto, and runs collectively on the promise of enacting those policies if they win. Partly because, unlike the UK Prime Minister, the European Commission isn't meant to represent the people at all - it's meant to represent the EU's interests as an institution.
The Westminster system works only because First-past-the-post can effectively disenfranchise 2/3rd of the electorate, dramatically reducing the variables of parliamentary arithmetics. When that doesn't work, the system crumbles. And this is precisely what we have seen in two of the last three UK elections, with hung parliaments: alliances were built in the Commons that have little or no connection to manifests and the likes.
The EU Parliament is infinitely more representative of the population - which is why, for example, the UK could send several MEPs from UKIP, who have failed to enter the British Parliament for 20 years.
> there are no EU-wide political parties, just shifting alliances of local national parties
That's just not true. The two main groups are very stable alliances of the postwar socialdemocratic and conservative parties. Only small parties "shift", and that's just a recent development due to a rise of populistic parties that reject the traditional left/right setup. (They are also forced to aggregate for administrative reasons depending on their size).
> Now, pretty much no-one voted for MEPs based on which alliance they were part of
Nice baseless generalization there, that's definitely not the case. In countries that take MEPs seriously, there are big discussions on where each party will "sit", so to speak. In many cases it reveals where the real insticts of a new party really lie.
The Guardian piece you link is particularly interesting. It's permeated by a conviction that national governments, rather than MEPs, should "run things" around Bruxelles, and when it doesn't haeppens it's some sort of stitch-up. It's a very anti-democratic view, but it suits the UK discourse that the EU is "unrepresentative" when the UK is a minority on a give subject - and it reflects an authoritarian view of government, typical of post-Blair Britain.
> He then rewarded one of the guys who helped him manage this with an extremely shady permanent appointment
Yep, this was a scandal. The EP censored Juncker, and the situation did not escalate only because he's on his way out anyway. Hopefully the new Commission President will fire Selmayr. We'll see.
> This is very different from the UK system, where each party and its leader agrees on their platform for the next election, publishes it as a manifesto, and runs collectively on the promise of enacting those policies if they win.
Not what Tory MPs say. They say things like
> Neither Cabinet, MPs nor Party Policy Forum ever saw or debated it. It was roundly rejected
> and widely agreed to have cost us our majority, leaving the mandate in Parliament, not the
> Party. (As I wrote in @Telegraph the morning after). Lost majority=Lost mandate.
> Does America vote for the secretary of transportation?
The secretary of transportation has no legislative power as opposed to the EU Commission. This comparison is flawed.
> The president of the EU commission is effectively elected
It is the most intransparent and indirect way of determining a political position. As voter you have zero control over who is part of the Commission.
Also the EU constitution was put in place without the consent of the people of the member states. It was completely instigated by some elites hence inherently undemocratic.
> It is the most intransparent and indirect way of determining a political position. As voter you have zero control over who is part of the Commission.
It's the same way the British PM is elected. Direct (or rather electoral college) elections for the U.S. president is one way, but many countries have the head of government as leader of the largest party. In this case Juncker was the nominated candidate of the largest group (the EPP)
> Does America vote for the secretary of transportation?
Does the secretary of transportation have the power to create laws?
Do you honestly believe that a functioning democracy doesn't require a) separation of power (not present in EU, where legislative and executive power is merged, and the parliament has only the power to (dis)approve) and b) direct accountability to the people of the most impactful, legislative, branch (not present in EU, where legislative branch is appointed by executive)?
In the UK legislative and executive power is normally merged by the government whips maintaining control, and the parliament has the power to (dis)approve. Parliament can attempt some amendments, but they must be in scope, and again under normal circumstances the amendment won't pass without support of the government.
MEPs can also amend bills coming from the commission, so very similar to the UK system.
Of course we live in interesting times, with a minority government, a fractured party, and parliament last night made a move that hasn't been done for over 100 years. Even last night all parliament did was gain control over it's own timetable.
Still parliament can't effectively pass any laws on it's own -- take the Voyeurism (Offences) #2 bill. An MP had attempted to introduce this, but 1 MP had objected, and thus it couldn't be passed. Instead the government introduced it.
These are pretty weak arguments to get rid of the EU.
In many democracies, the government has the power to propose legislation. And what democracy doesn't have backroom deals?
The problem here is that the backroom deal of two countries (Germany and France) now has influence over countries that are totally unrelated like e.g. Finland. This turns the EU into a tyranny where might is right. Why should Germans have a say about how the internet should work in Finland?
The EU is also already dying. Brexit will come soon and Italy is on it's way out. What the remnants will be is unclear but the EU as a whole has already failed. The settlement process to unwind it will be lengthy and painful.
The problem here is that the backroom deal of two states (California and New York) now has influence over states that are totally unrelated like e.g. Wyoming. This turns the US into a tyranny where might is right. Why should Californians have a say about how the internet should work in Wyoming?
(The reality of course is that the US has had not only a say, but often the only say in how the internet should work in the rest of the world for decades, and when it comes to copyright law we have an undemocratic international treaty dating back generations that keeps pushing expiry dates back and back globally)
I never said that the US is a great example for a functioning democracy. The best example for democracy is Switzerland. It also has the highest standard of living in the world as a result.
Switzerland's high standard of living is almost entirely due to their smartness. They kept out of wars and as a result could incrementally (and exponentially) build wealth instead of rebuilding their country from ruins every few decades.
And it only wasn't invaded because the entire country was (and is) a standing army, and Germany would have to pay dearly for every mile they tried to take.
IIRC they even shot down german war planes that entered their airspace and suffered no retaliation.
So yeah, they do have a knack for maintaining their neutrality.
That argument also applies to any democracy (or indeed any polity larger than a household): why should the people in my town have a say over the laws in the adjacent town?
What? Dude, the EU can only do this because the member-states are backing it. European politics is corrupt at least from the national level up. Would you abolish countries next? Because that's what it'd take.
I see the problem within society. There's too many people who care only about themselves and who don't mind at all if their neighbors got thrown under the bus by politics, even if they don't even gain anything. It's a problem of mentality.
Abolishing the EU would have the unfortunate consequence of unmitigated Russian influence over all of East Europe. The system needs to change, but abolishing the EU entirely would be a net loss.
The whole thing was a backroom deal between Germany (which wants gas from Russia) and France (which apparently really likes ultra restrictive Copyright). We would have the same result without this fake theater of the simulated democracy facade. Time to abolish the EU.