> quite a big step in assuming control over the lives of residents.
Have you heard of laws and governments before? This is exactly what they do, it’s also why democracy is such a big thing.
If you’re gonna give that much power to an organisation, you want to make sure you can change it if start going off the rails.
> The EU didn't create its citizens (unlike Apple which created its products);
It might not have “created” it’s citizens. But it certainly created and maintains the environment that make those citizens wealthy and capable of being a market for Apple.
I was just answering the parent's question: "I wonder what those people who keep saying it is Apple's platform they can do what ever they want had to say?"
They're nice views, I entertain myself that way sometimes, too.
But they all fall apart at the first meeting with the police, especially when you're the suspect. We're powerless.
And that's "just" the police, the military is the actual force of a government and they're absolutely not keen on listening to your philosophies. It's an interesting world, for sure.
No, at least not in the semi-democracy systems that are in use today. In most western countries the citizens are allowed to vote on a portion of the people that create and run the government. It varies between countries but even in those nearest a system that resembles democracy the citizens don't have much power over what happens or who most of the people running the system are.
Voters of France and Netherlands strongly rejected the treaty upon which the EU derives is legitimacy. Referendums were cancelled elsewhere.
Ursula von der Leyen did not receive any votes, she wasn't even part of the process, she was an unknown German figure until after the election, when she was plucked from obscurity by actors acting in total opacity, behind closed doors: "Here is your New Leader".
I respect much of the commercial facility of the EU, but it's severely lacking in democracy.
And while I think a lot of the intentions of the current system are reasonable, a lot of it is not ... and I'm super concerned that totally unelected and unaccountable elite are just going to be smashing their big hands into the economy, with the simplistic populist notions of 'American Economic Imperialism' and a kind of anti-American jealousy just under the surface.
It'd be nice to see much more thoughtfulness here, but more importantly, mechanisms to improve European competitiveness.
The EU democratic structure is complex, that for sure. But it's hardly undemocratic.
The EU has always struggled to explain how it works, why it's structure works the way it does. But all the leaders in the EU are elected, just not always via direct elections. A process that actually isn't that unusual in the world.
The US is actually a bit of an outlier, because they have direct elections for almost every position in government, with some slightly mixed results. The EU it's common for countries to select and organise their executive bodies via in-direct elections. For example in the UK our prime minister isn't directly elected, the general public didn't "choose" Boris Johnson. Instead the conservative party did, via its own methodology which it can change any time it does.
The current byzantine system exists out of a need to somehow balance the power of the EU as a federal entity, against the sovereignty of the individual nations. With irony come from the fact that the "unelected" leader only exist because it give more power to leaders of the member states, and takes it away from the EU as an organisation independent of its member states and their elected governments.
The EU democratic structure is complex, that for sure. But it's hardly undemocratic.
I don't really want to start a rehash of the entire Brexit debate we had in the UK, but the EU does have a serious democratic deficit.
Ask yourself this simple question: Can a citizen who is governed by the EU meaningfully influence who is doing that governing? In particular, can a large group of citizens affect who holds power within the EU and vote out those individuals they don't want, so any individual office holder has some degree of personal accountability to the electorate?
It would take quite a leap to argue that the European Commission, which is where most of the real power still lies in practice, would meet any of those standards.
It is debatable whether even the European Parliament does, though it is at least more directly affected by the public vote.
For example in the UK our prime minister isn't directly elected, the general public didn't "choose" Boris Johnson. Instead the conservative party did, via its own methodology which it can change any time it does.
Our arrangement here in the UK suffers from a similar problem of failing to faithfully represent the will of the electorate. FPTP is a deeply flawed voting system on purely mathematical grounds, and then the mechanics through which the PM and by extension the government come to power once MPs have been elected can be even more distorted.
If you don't think it matters that many of our population have little influence over who occupies Number 10, I would respectfully remind you that one of the first things each new PM does is handwrite four letters that could literally cause the end of the world as we know it.
> Can a citizen who is governed by the EU meaningfully influence who is doing that governing? In particular, can a large group of citizens affect who holds power within the EU and vote out those individuals they don't want, so any individual office holder has some degree of personal accountability to the electorate?
Erm yes. A large group of citizen can apply pressure to its local government to push for change in the EU, they can also to the same via MEP elections. You just need to remember that a "large group" need to be very large to be considered important relative to the EU 450 million citizens. The UK's total population only makes up 14% of the total EU population, what gives us the right to dictate terms over the remaining 86%?
National governments pick the members of the European Commision, so if you're not happy with your European Commission representative, take it up with your national government. As for the member picked by other governments, well you wouldn't expect to have power over an MP that doesn't represent you.
> It is debatable whether even the European Parliament does
The European Parliament obviously does. The only reason why the UK keeps getting short changed by the European Parliament is because we keep electing idiots into power. Most because our national government like to pretend MEPs don't exist, thus doesn't educate people on the importance of MEP elections, then acts surprised when the European Parliament doesn't represent the UK population.
> If you don't think it matters that many of our population have little influence over who occupies Number 10
I think it does matter, I think it matter quite a bit. But I'm not convinced that the general public is the best body to make that choice directly. The whole point of have a representatives is that they have the time and resources to educate themselves on the minutiae of state, and make better decisions than the general public. Not because they're smarter or better, but because they're better informed.
My view on the EU debate in the UK has always boiled down to the fact the UK public has simply not bothered to engage with the democratic systems in the EU, so it's not a surprise that those systems don't represent us. The fix here was always for the UK to actually participate in the EU, not just strope, but that would require the UK national government to stop using the EU as it scapegoat for its own domestic failures. At least with Brexit the UK government won't be able to blame the EU for everything anymore, and we might actually get some competent leaders with a real vision for the UK.
The UK public has been told very little about the EU. There's very little local European news in the British media, and what does appear is often jokey and condescending or slanted in a negative.
A snowstorm in the US will get significant coverage, but an equivalent major weather event in France and Germany won't.
The reality is the British Establishment simply doesn't understand Europe as a social and political project. It has no clue what consensus building, social responsibility, and political integration are for, and simply sees the EU - at least, saw the EU - as an exploitable if rather shifty trading partner.
Now the EU is a competitor, the US has limited interest in the UK, the former commonwealth countries have been looking elsewhere, and the UK's rather minimal level of independent leverage is about to become very obvious.
"Erm yes. A large group of citizen can apply pressure to its local government to push for change in the EU, they can also to the same via MEP elections. "
This is obviously false, it has never happened in the history of the EU - just the opposite - citizens literally voted overwhelmingly against major treaties, and they were passed anyhow.
Explain to us right now how major nations voted against the Treaty of Lisbon, and it was enacted anyhow?
"It is debatable whether even the European Parliament does
The European Parliament obviously does. "
It obviously doe not, the evidence is clear: MEPs don't even have the right to introduce legislation, they don't chose or censure their leaders, they have almost no power at all.
"thus doesn't educate people on the importance of MEP elections, then acts surprised when the European Parliament doesn't represent the UK population."
Again, completely baseless claims. The level of awareness of MEP involvement is similarly low in other countries.
"My view on the EU debate in the UK has always boiled down to the fact the UK public has simply not bothered to engage with the democratic systems in the EU"
No - there is no meaningful way for individual citizens or groups to engage with on the EU level, by reason of scale and design, it was never meant to be that way.
Ask yourself the question:
+ Why can MEPs not introduce legislation?
+ Why can MEPs not meaningfully censure leaders?
+ Why can MEPs, the only elected officials, not chose the leadership cadre?
+ Why is election turnout a paltry 45%
Those were concrete, well designed choices, and the lack of democracy embodied in those choices was purposeful.
The EU was specifically designed with a democracy deficit to keep the plebes and populism at bay.
Those who defend the system are either ignorant of the reality of it, like Chinese commoners defending their President Xi on the basis of 'security and prosperity' - or they know the Machiavellian roots of the decisions and are just unwilling to admit it.
Pro EU people are so often unwilling to engage in any way in the issue, they're like Trumpers or the more hardcore patriotic America types who see no wrong or nuance in American foreign policy example.
These are the usual arguments in defence of the EU's democratic credentials. The fundamental problem I have with them is that they don't actually meet the simple, transparent standards I set out for meaningful democratic representation.
National governments pick the members of the European Commision, so if you're not happy with your European Commission representative, take it up with your national government.
How, specifically, should someone do that in practice? Does someone cast an anonymous vote to indicate their preference? Will some robust system then make an objective determination of the outcome based on the popular vote? This is how the people customarily determine their representatives in a representative democracy.
In reality, the number of levels of indirection between you or me as ordinary people who vote in elections and Ursula von der Leyen as the most powerful person in the EU government removes any meaningful requirement for her to either achieve a popular mandate before taking office or accept any meaningful personal accountability for her performance while in office.
And more generally, European Commissioner is infamous for being a role you give a national politician who is still in favour with the leadership but perhaps has lost popular support. Just look at the past roles of the people who get nominated to these positions by their respective governments. There's an incredible number of ex-representatives, and often not ex- by choice but because the electorate chose not to re-elect them.
The European Parliament obviously does.
Not in my country. While it operates a PR system, it's a party list, so again at a minimum it fails my personal accountability criterion. The only way for the people to remove a particular individual they don't like from power is, in this case, to remove everyone from that individual's party from power in that electoral region.
In fact, this is the same basic problem with many of the situations we've been discussing here. You can in theory indirectly influence which individual holds power. The catch is that your only way to remove them is some sort of nuclear option. Don't like your nation's choice for European Commissioner? No problem, just elect a different entire national government at the last election. Don't like the UK's current PM? No problem, just make sure no-one votes for any MPs in that person's party at the last election. Don't like the current European Commission President? Sorry, I can't help you much with that one because hardly anyone (including hundreds of MEPs, by the way) actually knows how she got the job.
The whole point of have a representatives is that they have the time and resources to educate themselves on the minutiae of state, and make better decisions than the general public. Not because they're smarter or better, but because they're better informed.
Again, so the theory goes. But as someone who has interacted with various MPs personally, and through them also with senior figures in government on a few occasions, I can promise you that it is a work of fiction in practice.
Just look at the nonsense MPs on both sides of the Brexit debate were shouting from the rooftops before the referendum. Or for something a little less inflammatory, try the arguments they've made about regulating business and technology, including in the EU measures we're discussing here and the roughly analogous UK plans also announced today. Those weren't the arguments of well-informed experts who have studied the issues and drawn rational conclusions. In many cases, they weren't even the arguments of a moderately well-informed member of the general public. And they were statements not just from elected representatives but often from senior government figures!
The truth is that there is absolutely nothing about our current system of government that requires our MPs to be qualified to make or capable of making better decisions than members of the public who are well-informed about and personally interested in any particular issue. Even those who are intelligent and trying to do a good job, as I'm sure many MPs actually are despite all the negative press they get, can't possibly become experts on everything and don't have the resources to staff it out. And even on issues they do choose to prioritise, unless they are members of the party in power and take a government position with all the strings that are attached to doing so, their power to influence policy is often very limited even when acting in quite large groups.
And the same is true of most other elected representatives and political appointments, whether in the UK or EU. This isn't about Brexit, or about being pro- or anti-EU, if that even means anything anyway. It's a problem with systems of government operating at national and international levels where those in power are so well insulated from the voting public that they don't require a popular mandate and aren't required to be accountable to the people for whom they supposedly act. That's not democracy, at least not in any meaningful sense of the word.
> In reality, the number of levels of indirection between you or me as ordinary people who vote in elections and Ursula von der Leyen as the most powerful person in the EU government removes any meaningful requirement for her to either achieve a popular mandate before taking office or accept any meaningful personal accountability for her performance while in office.
In my country (France) there is exactly one level of indirection between me and Ursula von der Leyen: the President (currently Emmanuel Macron). Of course my voice is only one among 60 million French citizens, and 450 million EU citizens. And yet since I personally voted for Macron and IIRC Macron is the one who proposed Ursula von der Leyen, the line is pretty straight... In the UK there would be two levels: you elect your MPs, that then chose the Prime Minister, that then chose the European Commission President and Commissioners.
But I understand what you say. I had heard about Ursula von der Leyen as Germany defense minister before she became President of the European Commission (but that's only because I pay some attention to European defense affairs), yet when I cast my vote for Macron, I wasn't quite expecting to be voting for her.
I would prefer for the head of the European Commission to be elected by European MPs, but that would give too much power to the EU, a big no no for many EU members (including UK, at least while it was part of the EU). Notice the irony in that it's usually the political parties that criticize the EU the most for being undemocratic, that are the ones that oppose it becoming more democratic the most. It's disingenuous, yet logical, because a more democratic EU would have more power, so if you are anti-EU you don't want that.
As things stand the European Commission is only doing what the European Council is asking them to do. Which is somewhat ok (as in democratic), but lend itself more to shenanigans between states. If the European Commission was instead bound to the European Parliament, it would care less of the member states, and more of European citizens...
> And more generally, European Commissioner is infamous for being a role you give a national politician who is still in favour with the leadership but perhaps has lost popular support. Just look at the past roles of the people who get nominated to these positions by their respective governments. There's an incredible number of ex-representatives, and often not ex- by choice but because the electorate chose not to re-elect them.
In France it's usually perceived as a promotion. Our previous representative (Pierre Moscovici) was rather popular, and the current one (Thierry Breton) isn't even a politician: he was the CEO of Atos (a competitor of IBM I would say). Although he was minister once, from 2005 until 2007, so he is not a complete newbie in politics. Isn't it somewhat ironic that left-leaning France is sending a successful CEO to the European Commission, while UK is (was) recycling failing politicians?
> How, specifically, should someone do that in practice? Does someone cast an anonymous vote to indicate their preference? Will some robust system then make an objective determination of the outcome based on the popular vote? This is how the people customarily determine their representatives in a representative democracy.
Well it up to each national government to decide this process. If you're not happy with the way your national government makes this selection, then I encourage you to reach out to you national government representative and make your views heard. If it's something you really care about, then start a grassroots movement, or join a large national political party, and advance change the same way you would for any other domestic issue.
It seems like at very large, and undemocratic, over step for the EU to dictate how national governments run their affairs within the boundaries of the treats that define the EU. Something that every national government in the EU ratified. If you're not happy with how your national government ratified those treaties, then I again recommend the above, contact your local national government representative and make your views heard.
> European Commissioner is infamous for being a role you give a national politician who is still in favour with the leadership but perhaps has lost popular support.
This is hardly a surprise. The whole point of European Commissioners is it's how national governments retain their own sovereignty. Of-course they're going to give the role to people they know and trust, they want them to be aligned with their own national interests, not the broader EU interests. Once again, you don't like it, talk to your national government, this is their choice, not the EU's. Most people in the EU with a federalist world view would much rather see more direct democracy within the EU, with a reduction in power of national governments in the process.
> so again at a minimum it fails my personal accountability criterion.
You have a strange concept of what personal accountability means, why does the electorate need a direct method of removing an individual? How would that even work? Not to mention the issue that it turns the entire political system into little more than a popularity contest. People who are good national leaders are not always good campaigners, and good campaigner are not always good leaders. Boris Johnson in the UK is a classic example of the latter.
> Don't like your nation's choice for European Commissioner? No problem, just elect a different entire national government at the last election. Don't like the UK's current PM? No problem, just make sure no-one votes for any MPs in that person's party at the last election.
Well interestingly have a healthy PR system with many parties makes this very easy. When your government is made up of many parties collaborating together, it's easier for the electorate to just vote for someone else, without it causing a huge swing in government direction.
I notice that in your previous comment, you talk about how terrible FPTP is, now your saying the PR is also bad. What exactly do you want?
> And the same is true of most other elected representatives and political appointments, whether in the UK or EU. This isn't about Brexit, or about being pro- or anti-EU, if that even means anything anyway. It's a problem with systems of government operating at national and international levels where those in power are so well insulated from the voting public that they don't require a popular mandate and aren't required to be accountable to the people for whom they supposedly act. That's not democracy, at least not in any meaningful sense of the word.
I'm glad you recognise that you're demands aren't fulfilled by any current form of democracy anywhere in the world. But, you know, this whole democracy thing is still a work in progress, to quote Churchill
> No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time
I'm personally not ready to throw the towel in just yet. Sure the EU needs work, I don't disagree, but I don't think it fundamentally less democratic than any other democratic government. Humanity is still trying to figure out this whole fair and equitable division of power and resources. And rather than just rubbishing all the work so far, I much prefer to focus on area where it's really worked. Such as the 75 years uninterrupted of peace the Europe has had, thanks to the EU, to grow and prosper into a place where countries like the UK can throw a tantrum and storm off, and no one needs to worry about a war.
Well, I'm a Brit, so the only response I can offer to much of your comment is that apparently enough of my fellow voters did feel strongly enough about these issues that Brexit was the result. Obviously not everyone agrees that leaving the entire organisation was a desirable or proportionate response to its perceived flaws, but that's what happened.
I'll address a couple of your other specific points directly.
You have a strange concept of what personal accountability means, why does the electorate need a direct method of removing an individual? How would that even work? Not to mention the issue that it turns the entire political system into little more than a popularity contest.
The argument is that representatives who have no credible accountability for their actions are free to misrepresent the people they supposedly act for. It creates a principal-agent problem.
As for how it would work, elections where individual candidates are personally supported by votes is one major factor. Powers of recall for representatives who fall far short of the expectations of their electorate are also not unusual, though obviously not universal.
And democracy is inevitably a popularity contest at first anyway. Only after someone has held office for a while can you judge them on their actions rather than their words. For example, when Johnson was elected in December 2019, I doubt many people voting for his party realised that the next year was going to be dominated by something very different to Brexit. At this point, if enough people felt that the Johnson government's response to the coronavirus situation was inadequate, a situation that was barely conceivable at the time the people last voted, is it not reasonable in a democracy that the people should be able to choose new leadership instead of enduring policies the current government had given no substantial indication about before the last election and any consequences they may have for public health?
I notice that in your previous comment, you talk about how terrible FPTP is, now your saying the PR is also bad. What exactly do you want?
I didn't say PR was bad in general. I said party list systems fail my criteria for individual accountability of representatives, which they do. I consider this a significant democratic deficit, and one which could have been avoided by using a better voting system at the relevant elections. Nevertheless, it still results in a more-or-less proportional representation, and in that respect it is clearly superior to FPTP.
> Can a citizen who is governed by the EU meaningfully influence who is doing that governing? In particular, can a large group of citizens affect who holds power within the EU and vote out those individuals they don't want, so any individual office holder has some degree of personal accountability to the electorate?
In theory, yes. But it would take a huge group of people. Which is practically impossible these days.
So you are right, there is a serious deficit of democracy, not only in the EU, but everywhere imo.
I realised after I wrote my original comment that I forgot to add a rider along the lines of "without causing profound and possibly unwanted side effects", which is often the fundamental problem with having indirectly elected (aka appointed without a popular vote) people in positions of power.
And you're right, this is a very widespread problem today. That doesn't mean we shouldn't acknowledge the issue and challenge the status quo where opportunities present, of course.
I don't see how Brexit was supposed to fix an alleged EU democratic deficit when the UK suffers from the same problems - even more so, because most EU countries don't have FPTP.
In fact the EC is just the EU's version of the UK cabinet, but on a bigger scale. Everyone present is elected by their national voters, but there are - as yet - no direct EU-wide elections for specific EU posts.
Opponents of the EU criticise this while simultaneously being furious at any hint of closer political union which might make direct EU-wide elections possible.
Just to be clear, I'm neither arguing for nor arguing against Brexit here.
Personally, I am a politically interested floating voter with no party affiliation. On the specific issue of Brexit, I have always had mixed feelings, for the simple reason that I expect it to have both some good and some bad effects for both the UK and the EU27, and I'm not sure anyone truly knows what the balance between them will end up being in the long term.
Something that does matter to me very much is how we run our governments, and that governments act with popular support and are accountable to their people. On this count, I do indeed make very similar criticisms of the way the EU operates and the way our own system of government operates here in the UK.
In that case I don't understand your point. You seem to be arguing for direct representation in the previous comment and arguing against it in the comment below.
I'm not really arguing for or against direct representation as such. I tend to judge democratic systems by their practical effects. Do they result in governments that act with popular support? Are the individuals who achieve power within those governments accountable to the people they supposedly act for, such that there will be consequences for them personally if they don't faithfully act for the people and do a decent job of it?
It's true that directly elected representatives are, in some situations, more likely to meet those standards. Indirectly elected officials are, by the nature of the system, not in need of a personal popular mandate to achieve power, nor directly accountable to the people, and the gap widens as more levels of indirection separate the official from someone who actually had to win a popular vote.
But I'm not necessarily arguing for directly electing everyone in public office. I don't think that works very well in practice either, because voters get election fatigue and anything but the big ticket elections can easily end up being more about which candidates have the best PR and spin rather than the best policies on the issues.
What I do think would be a big improvement in many cases is directly electing the people at the top of a system of government and having appointed officials subordinate to them. Many of the democratic deficits identified in this discussion, from forming the European Commission to choosing the PM and by extension the government in the UK, are examples where the lower level representatives are the only ones who actually have to win an election, and then some number of averages of averages up the tree you get the people with most of the real power being isolated from needing to attract or maintain popular support. I don't think this kind of arrangement is healthy for democracy, and I think forcing direct elections for those most senior positions would go some way to fixing the problem.
She was nominated by the Council of Europe (comprised of the heads of state for each of the EU nations), and confirmed by the European Parliament (which represents the European electorate).
That is a very uncharitable and weak interpretation of the grandparent. For the parliamentary elections, the bigger parties agreed to try to fix democracy deficits by promising to elect a nominated candidate (Frans Timmmermans and Manfred Weber) as president of the commission depending on which block won in parliament. Yet, after the election, in a typical EU backroom deal, von der Leyen was elected. So it is quite fair to say that no constituent voted for her in any meaningful way.
The UK has exactly the same opacity. People vote for parties, and the winning party can replace its leader at any time. Voters have exactly zero input into who is chosen. That choice is down to the party hierarchy, with some token show-voting from party members once a shortlist has been selected.
This is not true, and the most recent election in the UK is strong evidence of this.
UK voters know which parties they are voting for, their platforms, and their leaders, turnout is high, and there is general awareness of the issues.
In mostly the same way in other 'good' EU nations.
Parliament can fall if there's a lack of confidence in leadership, particularly on an important issue, in which case, there's an election. This happen with Johnson in the UK wherein there was an 'issue election' called and people were well aware of the issues.
This was actually a pretty strong and democratic process: Johnson had not been elected, so he went to the polls and people had material, meaningful input.
In proportional representation systems, leaders can change without elections as well (see: Sweden, Finland etc.) and it's not exactly perfect but it works well enough.
The 'good' European nations have pretty good democracy at the national level.
It's at the EU level that it's all Byzantine. Pun intended.
It's only opaque if you don't care enough to study the question. Ursula von der Leyen was chosen by the members of the European Council.
The European Council, among other responsibilities, "decides on the EU's overall direction and political priorities", and "nominates and appoints candidates to certain high profile EU level roles, such as the ECB and the Commission". [1] If you have to know only one thing about the EU, it's that one: power lies in the hand of the European Council.
The current members of the European Council are: Alexander De Croo for Belgium, Boyko Borisov for Bulgaria, Andrej Babiš for the Czech Republic, Mette Frederiksen for Denmark, Angela Merkel for Germany, Jüri Ratas for Estonia, Micheál Martin for Ireland, Kyriakos Mitsotakis for Greece, Pedro Sánchez for Spain, Emmanuel Macron for France, Andrej Plenković for Croatia, Giuseppe Conte for Italy, Nicos Anastasiades for Cyprus, Krišjānis Kariņš for Latvia, Gitanas Nausėda for Lithuania, Xavier Bettel for Luxembourg, Viktor Orbán for Hungary, Robert Abela for Malta, Mark Rutte for the Netherlands, Sebastian Kurz for Austria, Mateusz Morawiecki for Poland, António Costa for Portugal, Klaus Iohannis for Romania, Janez Janša for Slovenia, Igor Matovič for the Slovak Republic, Sanna Marin for Finland, and finally Stefan Löfven for Sweden.
If you don't like the direction of the EU, ask your representant to do something about it. Otherwise pick another one. They are all democratically elected (directly, or indirectly in parliamentary systems).
The EU is currently based upon the Treaty of Lisbon [1] signed in 2007 after the referenda of 2005 for the new constitution (Spain yes, France and Netherlands nay)
Yes, exactly. Nations gave away sovereign, constitutional powers literally after their populations boldly rejected the terms, in a fair and open democratic processes.
Other European nations, verging on 'voting no' were denied the chance precisely because the EU apparatus knew what the outcome would be.
There's basically no defence of that issue, and the patronizing arguments defending 'indirect' nature of democracy of the EU wear thin - voters have no material impact on the EU, which is how it was designed, very much on purpose.
The limitation that MEPs have no ability to introduce legislation or frankly drive any of the real legislative process is by design.
It's mesmerizing to watch legions of young people defend an undemocratic system that their ancestors literally fought for 2000 years to overcome, with literally millions dead. 'Reason' lasted only one generation, before ostensibly well meaning actors took away the rights of the plebes before their eyes, and convinced them that it was in their best interest.
There is obvious need for reform, and if there was, I'll bet Norway and UK would be part of it, and possibly even Switzerland.
> It's mesmerizing to watch legions of young people defend an undemocratic system that their ancestors literally fought for 2000 years to overcome, with literally millions dead.
It's mesmerizing to watch legions of young people defend a Union they grew up in with no wars, with relative economic stability, with open borders and unencumbered travel. Compared to their ancestors who literally sacrificed millions of people fighting over each square millimiter of land for centuries on end.
> There is obvious need for reform, and if there was, I'll bet Norway and UK would be part of it, and possibly even Switzerland.
Norway and Switzerland are not part of EU [1]. UK has left the EU and it will be fascinating how it will function now that it has severed basically all ties with the EU.
[1] They are a part of the Schengen Area and various other treaties. They are, however, tightly integrated into the EU and are basically bound by most of EU's laws.
"It's mesmerizing to watch legions of young people defend a Union they grew up in with no wars, with relative economic stability, with open borders and unencumbered travel."
A little bit like a Chinese citizen, defending their lack of democracy 'because 7% growth every year and stability!'.
Not only are things things 1) possible without the EU, 2) they were mostly put in place long before the body politic existed (the EEC is a primary driver of the above) 3) it has nothing to do with the democracy deficit.
"UK has left the EU and it will be fascinating how it will function now that it has severed basically all ties with the EU."
The UK has not 'severed all ties' ... but, are you truly asking how it's possible for a sovereign nation to function without the EU?
How does Australia function?
How does Japan function?
?
They will all get along mostly fine.
Again - none of the arguments given point to any reasonable underlying motivation for denying EU citizens the right to chose their leaders.
--> EU citizens are denied the right to vet, or vote for the leaders and their platforms, their elected officials cannot enact legislation, and their ability to censure the non-elected leaders (this is maybe the most important power) is basically non-existent.
Yes, a bit. A very tiny bit. And your inability to empathise with these people is telling.
> The UK has not 'severed all ties' ... but, are you truly asking how it's possible for a sovereign nation to function without the EU?
By spending decades building relationships with other countries.
The EU is UK's largest trading partner. It is a huge common market with no borders, barriers, or tariffs. The EU has trade agreements with over a hundred countries that all members benefit from. Including, yes, Australia and Japan.
By severing ties the UK establishes a barrier between itself and EU common market, it exits all trade agreements between EU and other countries, and so on and so forth. It will be decades before the UK re-establishes similar deals.
> EU citizens are denied the right to vet, or vote for the leaders and their platforms
Just a few years ago I voted in EU parliamentary elections. That doesn't sound like "denied the right to vet or vote".
By mining huge amounts of raw resources and selling to their near by neighbours as well as the rest of the world.
The U.K. doesn’t have access to any useful raw materials apart from perhaps coal.
> How does Japan function?
Through massive government borrowing. Their debt is 223% of GDP. Now it hasn’t really bitten them yet, but it’s increasingly looking like it’s gonna be a serious problem for them.
I’m not either of those options is something I would pick for the U.K.
> ancestors literally fought for 2000 years to overcome, with literally millions dead.
Not sure how good your history is. But the EU was built by an ancestors who were fed of fighting and dying by the millions in wars that did nothing to actually improve people lives.
The whole purpose of the EU from day zero was to ensure lasting peace in Europe, and given there haven't been any domestic European wars since its creation, I would say it's been pretty successful.
"The whole purpose of the EU from day zero was to ensure lasting peace in Europe"
?
You do realize the EU as a body politic is very recent?
(Not sure how good your history is. ?)
1) Yes, major powers who have economically integrated tend not to fight, that's great. It's the same all over the world. The US doesn't fight Japan either.
2) Europe's true sovereign guarantor, the US and their Nuclear Umbrella, which is the other 1/2 of the equation.
'The EU' is long after the fact.
Moreover - it's besides the point - as I articulated, the EU has fundamental flaws with respect to democracy that can't be addressed with any reasonable argument it seems.
EU citizens have little to no influence over their body politic, because all the power is a few points indirection away from their reach.
Europeans were told after the election who their anointed leader would be, what her political platform was, and what her vision for the EU was.
Just consider why for a moment the EU doesn't require leaders to be publicly announced and vetted before elections? Wouldn't that be a highly rational, reasonable, and arguably necessary element for legitimate democracy?
What were EU leaders thinking when they definitely decided that this would not be required?
It's absurd.
Many citizens saw it was absurd, voted against the Constitutional Treaty, and it was passed anyhow.
> Europeans were told after the election who their anointed leader would be, what her political platform was, and what her vision for the EU was.
> Just consider why for a moment the EU doesn't require leaders to be publicly announced and vetted before elections?
I'm from Italy. This is exactly what our Constitution provides about our Prime Ministers. They can be anybody, even without a seat in Parliament (or current Prime Minister doesn't.) The President of the Republic appoints them, probably even you because I don't see requirements about citizenship or residency. They must be confirmed by a vote of the Parliament (50%+1) and that's it. Actually, if they are not confirmed they still are Prime Minister until the President appoints somebody else. You can check Articles 92 to 96 of the Constitution at http://www.senato.it/documenti/repository/istituzione/costit... (PDF, English) from the site of one of the chambers of the Parliament.
I don't particularly like this but it's an example of how that is usual in Europe. Many other countries don't have direct elections for their leaders. Given this status it's normal that we don't elect the President of the Commission.
Furthermore what really matters is the Council, made by the leaders of each country. The Commission is the government but the real power is in the Council. A Commission going against the Council doesn't have any political backing.
Have you heard of laws and governments before? This is exactly what they do, it’s also why democracy is such a big thing.
If you’re gonna give that much power to an organisation, you want to make sure you can change it if start going off the rails.
> The EU didn't create its citizens (unlike Apple which created its products);
It might not have “created” it’s citizens. But it certainly created and maintains the environment that make those citizens wealthy and capable of being a market for Apple.