Is the democracy of the European Union any worse than UK's?

[danny la rouge]

Jesus. A lot of pro EU people really don't understand its structures, do they?

 

[DotCommunist]

it another example of argument by infographic, infographic most likely handily knocked up for you by one of the news outlets or groups that support the EU uncritically.
Its quite common on the other brexit thread, and like random tweets, usually dropped in without comment or context. Or argument. See also : look at these four pub blokes in a youtube video

 

[TruXta]

Tbh arguing about which is more democratic feels a bit like arguing about which kind of propulsion system will take humanity to the stars first. Yes there's a difference but to pretend it's one of kind rather than degree isn't right.

 

[eoin_k]

Which bits are incorrect ?

The unelected European Commission has an almost exclusive power to propose legislation, unlike any civil service of amy 'democratic' nation state.

 

[Pickman's model]

The unelected European Commission has an almost exclusive power to propose legislation, unlike any civil service of amy 'democratic' nation state.

hmm it was my recollection that the c of m could propose

 

[butchersapron]

Jesus. A lot of pro EU people really don't understand its structures, do they?

They're not supposed to. They're supposed to see European Parliament and assume the whole thing works like at home. And by christ it works don't it. The founders were quite explicit about this trick. If people like Farage can see it easily enough what does it say about their failure to do the same? For many it's as i suggested above though - happy serfs.

 

[eoin_k]

View attachment 150410

hmm it was my recollection that the c of m could propose

Discussing, amending and adopting aren't the same as proposing. Without getting bogged down in the minutiae of European Law, my point was that drawing straightforward analogies between European institutions and national ones doesn't work. The Commission has much greater powers than any of the civil service of any member state and the parliament is much weaker.

 

[Pickman's model]

Discussing, amending and adopting aren't the same as proposing.

yeh as i recognised in my post. however, they can "pre-propose" by suggesting legislation:

Planning and proposing law

it's weird

 

[eoin_k]

For alex_ 's analogy to hold up, domestic civil servants would need a large formal share in executive power. All of this has as much to do with national government's holding on to power, through the council (another nontransparent institution that is difficult to hold to account), as bureaucrats in Brussels pulling the strings mind you.

 

[danny la rouge]

They're not supposed to. They're supposed to see European Parliament and assume the whole thing works like at home. And by christ it works don't it. The founders were quote explicit about this trick. If people like Farage can see it easily enough what does it say about their failure to do the same? For many it's as i suggested above though - happy serfs.

Indeed. The parliament is a con. It constantly surprises me that people who have lived under this system still think the European Parliament acts like Westminster. Bullet points are perhaps required.

- The European Parliament doesn’t have the power to propose new laws. It can vote, it can pass laws, but it can’t initiate laws. The Commission initiates the laws: and it is unelected. The Commons, by contrast with the European Parliament, can initiate laws: even non-government MPs can introduce bills.


- In Westminster, the Executive is a subset of the Commons. In the European parliament, it is not. The unelected Commission is the Executive (though since Lisbon it has formally shared part of that status with the European Council, see below). The Commission is a body of technocrats and bureaucrats, and is distinct from the Parliament. It is not analogous to Whitehall. It is analogous to the Cabinet, despite being unelected.


- The European Council (the indirectly elected body of heads of state of member state governments) had no official status within the apparatus until the Lisbon Treaty, and even now the Council does not have the day to day function of the Commission: the Council ordinarily meets quarterly only, and has no legislative power. Since Lisbon, though, it is seen as a part of the Executive, and is the “strategic body”.


- The Council of the European Union is a different body, and used to be referred to as the Council of Ministers. It is made up of 28 ministers from member state governments, the particular ministers depending on which topic is being discussed. So, if it’s fisheries, the UK would likely send the Agriculture and Fisheries Minister of its government. Commissioners attend and contribute to the debates, but are not seen as members of the Council. The Presidency rotates every 6 months. This is the body that used to be seen as the source of the legitimacy for the Commission’s powers. In other words, it somehow conferred upon the Commission the power to act. That changed with the Lisbon Treaty. The Council’s other main function is to give the OK to legislation initiated by the Commission. The Council has more power than the Parliament, but it is seen as one of the two chambers, along with the Parliament.


So, no. It is not as democratic as even Westminster. It is a deliberately structured technocratic stitch up, devised to appear like a democracy, but not in any meaningful way being directly accountable to its electorate.

 

[TremulousTetra]

deleted

 

[danny la rouge]

I killed this thread with facts.

 

[TremulousTetra]

Indeed. The parliament is a con. It constantly surprises me that people who have lived under this system still think the European Parliament acts like Westminster. Bullet points are perhaps required.

- The European Parliament doesn’t have the power to propose new laws. It can vote, it can pass laws, but it can’t initiate laws. The Commission initiates the laws: and it is unelected. The Commons, by contrast with the European Parliament, can initiate laws: even non-government MPs can introduce bills.


- In Westminster, the Executive is a subset of the Commons. In the European parliament, it is not. The unelected Commission is the Executive (though since Lisbon it has formally shared part of that status with the European Council, see below). The Commission is a body of technocrats and bureaucrats, and is distinct from the Parliament. It is not analogous to Whitehall. It is analogous to the Cabinet, despite being unelected.


- The European Council (the indirectly elected body of heads of state of member state governments) had no official status within the apparatus until the Lisbon Treaty, and even now the Council does not have the day to day function of the Commission: the Council ordinarily meets quarterly only, and has no legislative power. Since Lisbon, though, it is seen as a part of the Executive, and is the “strategic body”.


- The Council of the European Union is a different body, and used to be referred to as the Council of Ministers. It is made up of 28 ministers from member state governments, the particular ministers depending on which topic is being discussed. So, if it’s fisheries, the UK would likely send the Agriculture and Fisheries Minister of its government. Commissioners attend and contribute to the debates, but are not seen as members of the Council. The Presidency rotates every 6 months. This is the body that used to be seen as the source of the legitimacy for the Commission’s powers. In other words, it somehow conferred upon the Commission the power to act. That changed with the Lisbon Treaty. The Council’s other main function is to give the OK to legislation initiated by the Commission. The Council has more power than the Parliament, but it is seen as one of the two chambers, along with the Parliament.


So, no. It is not as democratic as even Westminster. It is a deliberately structured technocratic stitch up, devised to appear like a democracy, but not in any meaningful way being directly accountable to its electorate.

superb response. Really appreciate that intelligent information. Thank you very much, Tremulous Tetra.

I voted leave BTW. But was ignorant of the facts you just presented.

 

[TremulousTetra]

I killed this thread with facts.

couldn't agree more. Your conceit is well deserved. :-D

 

[poului]

The European Parliament doesn’t have the power to propose new laws. It can vote, it can pass laws, but it can’t initiate laws. The Commission initiates the laws: and it is unelected.

This alone should be enough to dissuade someone, that not even your elected representative can propose anything. I've long been puzzled over just how wilful most Remainers' ignorance/indifference on this major sticking point is, and why.

 

[TremulousTetra]

Indeed. The parliament is a con. It constantly surprises me that people who have lived under this system still think the European Parliament acts like Westminster. Bullet points are perhaps required.

- The European Parliament doesn’t have the power to propose new laws. It can vote, it can pass laws, but it can’t initiate laws. The Commission initiates the laws: and it is unelected. The Commons, by contrast with the European Parliament, can initiate laws: even non-government MPs can introduce bills.


- In Westminster, the Executive is a subset of the Commons. In the European parliament, it is not. The unelected Commission is the Executive (though since Lisbon it has formally shared part of that status with the European Council, see below). The Commission is a body of technocrats and bureaucrats, and is distinct from the Parliament. It is not analogous to Whitehall. It is analogous to the Cabinet, despite being unelected.


- The European Council (the indirectly elected body of heads of state of member state governments) had no official status within the apparatus until the Lisbon Treaty, and even now the Council does not have the day to day function of the Commission: the Council ordinarily meets quarterly only, and has no legislative power. Since Lisbon, though, it is seen as a part of the Executive, and is the “strategic body”.


- The Council of the European Union is a different body, and used to be referred to as the Council of Ministers. It is made up of 28 ministers from member state governments, the particular ministers depending on which topic is being discussed. So, if it’s fisheries, the UK would likely send the Agriculture and Fisheries Minister of its government. Commissioners attend and contribute to the debates, but are not seen as members of the Council. The Presidency rotates every 6 months. This is the body that used to be seen as the source of the legitimacy for the Commission’s powers. In other words, it somehow conferred upon the Commission the power to act. That changed with the Lisbon Treaty. The Council’s other main function is to give the OK to legislation initiated by the Commission. The Council has more power than the Parliament, but it is seen as one of the two chambers, along with the Parliament.


So, no. It is not as democratic as even Westminster. It is a deliberately structured technocratic stitch up, devised to appear like a democracy, but not in any meaningful way being directly accountable to its electorate.

I am not arguing with you. I am seeking your opinion.

I shared your view above with somebody (anonymously). They responded with the below. Interested how you would respond to that.

The Commission is literially the EU Whitehall.

The due process i have already partly stated, but here it is in ful:

1) Heads of State or Senior Ministers meet and decide a area they wish for legislation or creation of a directive
2) The meeting states to the Commission what it wants and the spirit of it
3) The Commission codifies it into a legal document
4) The document is passed to the EU parliament (PR elected) for debate
5a) The document is either amended or rejected and thrown back at the commission
5b) The EU Parliment approves of the document
6) The document is then given to the Heads of State
7a) The Heads of State (or their chosen representative) then either votes Yes/No
7c) A few countries, like the UK, has a veto at this stage. So regardless if it gets a majority appoval it is denied. (The UK did this with a EU agrement to raise steel tarrifs of Chinese orgin. Which oddly enough 3 months later saw the near colapse of the British Steel industry)

8a) If the document is rejected. It gets bumped back to the EU Parliament for debate
8b) If the document is vetoed. It is thrown back to stage 3 or abandoned
8c) The document is approved and then the action/law/directive comes into force

 

[danny la rouge]

I shared your view above with somebody (anonymously). They responded with the below. Interested how you would respond to that.

The Commission is literially the EU Whitehall.

No, that's not correct. The Commission is the civil service, but it also holds the constitutional position of executive branch of the EU with legislative powers. Its 28 Commissioners (which head the 32,000-strong civil service) are more analogous to the Westminster Cabinet than to the Permanent Secretary Management Group or the Civil Service Steering Board. Jean-Claude Juncker's role is not the same as Sir Mark Sedwill's. Juncker's role is political as well as bureaucratic; Sedwill is a career bureaucrat.

It might seem a fine distinction, but it's important.