• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is EU's Democratic Deficit A Myth?

kaya'08

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 25, 2008
Messages
6,363
Reaction score
1,318
Location
British Turk
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Excerpts from "In Defence of the 'Democratic Deficit': Reassessing Legitimacy in the European Union" by Andrew Moravcsik

Concern about the EU's 'democratic deficit' is misplaced. Judged against existing advanced industrial democracies, rather than an ideal plebiscitary or parliamentary democracy, the EU is legitimate. Its institutions are tightly constrained by constitu- tional checks and balances: narrow mandates, fiscal limits, super-majoritarian and concurrent voting requirements and separation of powers. The EU's appearance of exceptional insulation reflects the subset of functions it performs - central banking, constitutional adjudication, civil prosecution, economic diplomacy and technical administration. These are matters of low electoral salience commonly delegated in national systems, for normatively justifiable reasons. On balance, the EU redresses rather than creates biases in political representation, deliberation and output.
Both political negotiations and intellectual debates have focused, perhaps above all, on the question of whether the EU is democratically legitimate. Most politicians, scholarly commentators and members of the European pub- lic appear to agree that the EU suffers from a severe 'democratic deficit'. There are many reasons why this perception is so widespread. An organization of continental scope will, of course, appear rather distant from the individual European citizen. As a multinational body, moreover, it lacks the ground- ing in a common history, culture, discourse and symbolism on which most individual polities can draw. Neither of these reasons, however, need necessarily disqualify the EU from being treated as a democratically legitimate body.

Rather, when analysts criticize the lack of democratic legitimacy in the EU, they generally point to the mode of political representation and the nature of policy outputs. Only one branch of the EU is directly elected: the European Parliament (EP). Though stronger than it once was, the EP remains only one of four major actors in the EU policy-making process. Its elections are decentralized, apathetic affairs, in which a relatively small number of voters select among national parties on the basis of national issues. Little discussion of European issues, let alone ideal transnational deliberation, takes place. For its part, the European Commission, which enjoys a powerful role as an agenda setter and regulatory cordinator, is widely perceived as a technocracy. The European Court of Justice, comprising 15 appointed judges, is unusually powerful. Most powerful of all, the Council of Ministers brings together national ministers, diplomatic representatives and administrative officials from the Member States, who often deliberate in secret. While indirectly accountable to voters, the link is too tenuous and the mode of interaction too diplomatic or technocratic to satisfy many observers.

For these reasons, many believe it is self-evident that the EU is not democratically legitimate. Yet my central contention here is that, if we adopt reasonable criteria for judging democratic governance, then the widespread criticism of the EU as democratically illegitimate is unsupported by the existing empirical evidence. At the very least, this critique must be heavily qualified. Constitutional checks and balances, indirect democratic control via national governments, and the increasing powers of the European Parliament are sufficient to ensure that EU policy-making is, in nearly all cases, clean, trans- parent, effective and politically responsive to the demands of European citizens.

Mostly critics overlook the relatively optimistic conclusion to be drawn from the evidence because they analyse the EU in ideal and isolated terms. Comparisons are drawn between the EU and an ancient, Westminster-style, or frankly utopian form of deliberative democracy. While perhaps useful for philosophical purposes, the use of idealistic standards no modern govern- ment can meet obscures the social context of contemporary European policy making - the real-world practices of existing governments and the multi- level political system in which they act. This leads many analysts to overlook the extent to which delegation and insulation are widespread trends in modern democracies, which must be acknowledged on their own terms. The fact that governments delegate to bodies such as constitutional courts, central banks, regulatory agencies, criminal prosecutors, and insulated executive negotia- tors is a fact of life, one with a great deal of normative and pragmatic justifi- cation. In this regard, moreover, most analysts view the EU in isolation, and thus fail to appreciate fully the symbiotic relationship between national and EU policy-making - a division of labour in which commonly delegated func- tions tend to be carried out by the EU, while those functions that inspire and induce popular participation remain largely national. This gives observers the impression that the EU is undemocratic, whereas it is simply specializing in those functions of modern democratic governance that tend to involve less direct political participation. We might, of course, choose to criticize the broader trend toward professional administration, judicial enforcement of rights and strong executive leadership, but it is unrealistic to expect the EU to bear
the brunt of such a critique - a point to which I return in the conclusion.
 
Yet the threat of a European superstate is a myth. The European constitutional settlement imposes tight constraints on EU policy. These combine and exceed the most extreme constraints imposed in national systems by consociational or consensus democracy (beyond, say, the Netherlands or Aus- tria of years past), federalism (e.g. Switzerland or Canada), separation of pow- ers (e.g. the United States), and reduced fiscal competences (e.g. the United States or Switzerland). The result is as much confederal as federal (Moravc- sik, 2001b; Elazar, 2001), and almost eliminates any threat of a European superstate.

The EU's current activities are restricted by treaty and practice to a modest
subset of the substantive activities pursued by modern states. Its mandate focuses primarily on the regulation of policy externalities resulting from cross- border economic activity. The core of EU activity and its strongest constitu- tional prerogatives still lie almost exclusively in the area of trade in goods and services, the movement of factors of production, the production of and trade in agricultural commodities, exchange rates and monetary policy, for- eign aid and trade-related environmental, consumer and competition policy. To be sure, there are exceptions, including a modest level of regional and structural funding of infrastructure, but even these exist primarily as side- payments for the creation of core policies. In some areas regulatory controls exceed narrow market-making functions, and immigration and foreign policies are emergent areas of action. But these tend often to be treated in more intergovernmental procedures, whereas the strongest constitutional prerogatives of the EU remain primarily economic

Power is divided vertically among the Commission, Council, Parliament and Court, and horizontally among lo- cal, national and transnational levels - requiring concurrent majorities for action. For legislation, the Commission must propose; the Parliament must consent; if the result is then challenged, the Court must approve; national parliaments or officials must transpose into national law; and national bu- reaucracies must implement. Even within each branch and level of EU gov- ernance, we encounter extraordinary pluralism. The Commission itself is a plural executive - so much so that experts disagree whether it is an executive at all. The EP requires unusually high majorities to act. As a result, consistent and effective EU policy-making tends to be possible only where there exists not just a supermajority of national representatives, but a supermajority of European technocrats, judges and parliamentarians as well. Current propos- als to represent more groups, for example through another chamber repre-
senting national parliamentarians, can only exacerbate this tendency.

It might be objected that the EU sometimes bypasses comitology and relies
overly on autonomous technocrats in the Commission or constitutional court judges to resolve essentially political questions involving the apportionment of cost, benefit and risk. Yet there is little that is distinctively 'European' about the pattern of delegation we observe in the EU. The late twentieth cen- tury has been a period of the 'decline of parliaments' and the rise of courts, public administrations and the 'core executive'. Increasingly, accountability is imposed not through direct participation in majoritarian decision-making, but instead through complex systems of indirect representation, selection of representatives, professional socialization, ex post review, and balances be-
tween branches of government (Majone, 1996).

The critical point for the study of the EU is this: within the multi-level governance system prevailing in Europe, EU officials (or insulated national representatives) enjoy the greatest autonomy in precisely those areas - cen- tral banking, constitutional adjudication, criminal and civil prosecution, tech- nical administration and economic diplomacy - in which many advanced industrial democracies, including most Member States of the EU, insulate themselves from direct political contestation. The apparently 'undemocratic'
nature of the EU as a whole is largely a function of this selection effect.
Insulation is not simply an empirical fact; it has normative weight.

And finally the conclusion:

So, we might reasonably ask, why then is there such public and scholarly concern about the democratic deficit? Concern appears to result, above all, from a tendency to privilege the abstract over the concrete. Most critics com- pare the EU to an ideal plebiscitary or parliamentary democracy, standing alone, rather than to the actual functioning of national democracies adjusted for its multi-level context. When we conduct the latter sort of analysis, we see that EU decision-making procedures, including those that insulate or delegate certain decisions, are very much in line with the general practice of most modern democracies in carrying out similar functions. This overall trend to- ward insulation of certain functions is in turn driven, most analysts believe, by considerations that should be given normative weight, such as the com- plexity of many policy issues, the rational ignorance and apathy of many publics, the desire to protect minority rights, and the power of certain special interests in situations of open political contestation. These constraints cannot be assumed away; they must be acknowledged on their own terms. As long as political procedures are consistent with existing national democratic practice and have a prima facie normative justification, I conclude, we cannot draw negative conclusions about the legitimacy of the EU from casual observation of the non-participatory nature of its institutions - a dictum that could usefully be applied in many contexts outside the EU.

These are just brief excerpts of the actual paper. Great read. Enjoy and debate.
 
I agree with most of it.. in fact I would say that the EU has more democracy than some member states or comparable states outside the EU.

The problem is that each country has generations after generations that grew up understanding their democracy and how it works, where as we were not taught in the same way how the EU works.

Even today, while talking to my own father on this very subject, I discovered that he was not fully aware over what the Council of Ministers was. In the discussion he proposed that we got Senate or 2 house system like in the US/UK, where each country elected 1 or 2 people to represent them or maybe used sitting ministers instead. When I pointed out that this was already going on he was semi shocked. He did not know, as many dont know, that the Council of Ministers is each countries mostly elected minister on the specific area that meets and ultimately agrees on policy, which then also has to be agreed with the Parliament.

Then there is the argument that we dont directly elect the Commission.. and my answer is do we elect management in individual ministries back home? Of course not. Does the Prime Minister of the UK have his Prime Ministers Secretary or whatever runs the PM office.. does he get elected? No. Does the Chief of Staff of the White House get elected? No.

This debate will go on and on, and the anti-EU types will always lose the debate once the facts are on the table, because in most cases they simply do not understand how the system works because they have never bothered to understand it or are actually trying to deceive people.
 
Excerpts from "In Defence of the 'Democratic Deficit': Reassessing Legitimacy in the European Union" by Andrew Moravcsik


Who do i vote against/for if i don't like the European commission?
 
No, it's not a myth, it's a reality.

But you know, some people don't see it as much as a problem and sweep the problems under the rug instead of looking at them with fresh eyes and seeing the reality.

Take this new thing, that i linked in my description. The ESM. there are woeful concerns about it and you, dear citizen, never voted on whether it should be implemented, a new bank from your money. Don't you think that if the EU wants to uphold itself as a democratic paragon, it should be MORE democratic than the national governments. This is the argument the pro-EU ppl don't understand. They hail this EU thing as a glorious achievement, a crowning glory of the European nations, but it's more of the same only on a more powerful stage and with more bureaucracy. It should be better if it wants to make people actually love the EU.

Make the EU more democratic, get the public's input more often than just to vote some meaningless EUPARLs who can't even draft legislation, and then we'll talk. You can't preach democracy when your own means of communicating and understanding the will of the people is in shambles.
 
Who do i vote against/for if i don't like the European commission?

Who do I vote against/for if I dont like the civil servants running the government?
 
No, it's not a myth, it's a reality.

But you know, some people don't see it as much as a problem and sweep the problems under the rug instead of looking at them with fresh eyes and seeing the reality.

Take this new thing, that i linked in my description. The ESM. there are woeful concerns about it and you, dear citizen, never voted on whether it should be implemented, a new bank from your money.

Name one country (other than the Swiss) where the people got to vote on how the national bank and currency are run....

Don't you think that if the EU wants to uphold itself as a democratic paragon, it should be MORE democratic than the national governments.

Well as Brit, it is more democratic :) But why should it be more democratic than other democratic systems... and what is "more"?

This is the argument the pro-EU ppl don't understand. They hail this EU thing as a glorious achievement, a crowning glory of the European nations, but it's more of the same only on a more powerful stage and with more bureaucracy. It should be better if it wants to make people actually love the EU.

No what the anti-EU people dont understand is their "more" demand is undefined. For example, they want the EU commission to be elected... and then I reply why would you want to elect the managers of the civil service of the EU? They are appointed in every other country and in the EU there is some sort of balance, where as in say the UK, they are appointed by the sitting government from "friends" and hence dont act as a counterweight as in many ways they should.

Make the EU more democratic, get the public's input more often than just to vote some meaningless EUPARLs who can't even draft legislation, and then we'll talk. You can't preach democracy when your own means of communicating and understanding the will of the people is in shambles.

You are wrong. The EU Parliament can "draft legislation", but it is slightly different than in a normal democratic system.. and then again it is not. They have to ask the civil service aka the Commission to come with the draft proposal and then ultimately there is a negotiation between the Commission, Council of Ministers and Parliament on how that legislation will turn out. Now that is a tad different than a normal democratic system as it is more OPEN on how things are done, but in reality it is not much different than how any other parliament works.... or do you really think that it is the politicians that draft the legislation that is presented in your parliament? :)
 
Who do I vote against/for if I dont like the civil servants running the government?

The party that appoints/doesnt appoint them. Regardless its a meaningless comparison given that the European commission can make rules on its own.
 
The party that appoints/doesnt appoint them. Regardless its a meaningless comparison given that the European commission can make rules on its own.

HELL NO. They can propose rules and regulations based on wishes or the treaty documentation yes, but "make rules" as in approve, hell no. All rules and regulations have to be approved by the Council of Ministers and in most cases the EU Parliament.

A civil servant in the UK government also makes rules on his/her own, but none of them are every put into work without the approval of his/her bosses. No difference in the EU and the EU commission.

The only difference is that the EU commission are for the most part former ministers/politicians with high profiles and they can represent the EU on behalf of the members if the members say so.... not exactly what your average civil servant is and can do.
 
My opinion is more or less a middle ground ... no, I don't think the democracy deficit is a myth, but it's by far not as bad as many say.

However, I do believe the EU needs more democracy (and especially more political competition!). It's one step in the right direction that the Commission President has to come from the strongest party in the Parliament, but not enough. We need more elections with *clear alternatives* to choose from.
 
Well as Brit, it is more democratic
What does that mean? You're not a Brit and Rainman, who you were responding to, isn't a Brit either. Why are you singling out the Brits?

No what the anti-EU people dont understand is their "more" demand is undefined. For example, they want the EU commission to be elected... and then I reply why would you want to elect the managers of the civil service of the EU? They are appointed in every other country and in the EU there is some sort of balance, where as in say the UK, they are appointed by the sitting government from "friends" and hence dont act as a counterweight as in many ways they should.
That's not true. Only Special Advisors are appointed directly by the elected officials. Every other civil servant is appointed in the same way that civil servants are appointed everywhere else. Why have you got a bug up your arse about the UK?
 
What does that mean? You're not a Brit and Rainman, who you were responding to, isn't a Brit either. Why are you singling out the Brits?

Because you have an unelected upper house.... no other nation in the EU has that as far as I know. Hence the EU is more democratic than the UK.

That's not true. Only Special Advisors are appointed directly by the elected officials. Every other civil servant is appointed in the same way that civil servants are appointed everywhere else. Why have you got a bug up your arse about the UK?

Just an example, cool down. I am using the Brits as an example because of the above. Point is that civil servants or special advisor's or what ever you call them in each country, are not elected people and are the ones who actually do 90% of the legislative work on behalf of the elected politicians. Hence there is no difference between the commission and civil servants.
 
Name one country (other than the Swiss) where the people got to vote on how the national bank and currency are run....

Well as Brit, it is more democratic :) But why should it be more democratic than other democratic systems... and what is "more"?

No what the anti-EU people dont understand is their "more" demand is undefined. For example, they want the EU commission to be elected... and then I reply why would you want to elect the managers of the civil service of the EU? They are appointed in every other country and in the EU there is some sort of balance, where as in say the UK, they are appointed by the sitting government from "friends" and hence dont act as a counterweight as in many ways they should.

You are wrong. The EU Parliament can "draft legislation", but it is slightly different than in a normal democratic system.. and then again it is not. They have to ask the civil service aka the Commission to come with the draft proposal and then ultimately there is a negotiation between the Commission, Council of Ministers and Parliament on how that legislation will turn out. Now that is a tad different than a normal democratic system as it is more OPEN on how things are done, but in reality it is not much different than how any other parliament works.... or do you really think that it is the politicians that draft the legislation that is presented in your parliament? :)

OK .

The ESM was an example. There was no accountability for it. Nobody discussed it in Parliament. Nobody made a fuss. The parliament was given the treaty and they voted on it and that's that. No discussion on the subject of any relevance, that's why most people don't know about it. The only elected body by the people hadn't served it's function on informing their constituents on what is happening.

Not to mention that the average rate of lawpassing in the EU parliament is about 2 per minute in the heated sessions. I mean they just vote like rabbits do what rabbits do best.

The EU president, von rompoy, is unelected and he sits with the rest of the heads of states and brokers deals and agreements. And he was named permanent member or permanent president. Why? What is this? It's absurd. Barosso is a bureaucrat or as you, part of the civil service, because we the people don't vote for him. If the EU comission president were an electable position, people would be more informed on who the guys running are. Now, we have shultz and Junkers. If I walk down on the street and mention their names, nobody knows who the hell they are and one of them will be the guy who drafts the legislation in the EU for the next 5 years after these elections.

No, it's not the politicians that draft the legislation in my country, but they are accountable for what is voted and what is introduced. So if a MP named... John Smith introduces a law to be voted, and that law turns out to be very unpopular, he'll suffer for it. He won't get elected again or he will have to resign due to public pressure and if he has some integrity and the rest of the politicians who previously passed the law will get punished in the elections. Or at least that's the theory. How do we punish Barosso for introducing a very unfavorable law? We don't. We can't. He can be the most hated individual in the EU and he won't suffer any repercussions.

Look. The EU has to be more publicly involved and more publicly accountable. That's what "more" means.
 
OK .

The ESM was an example. There was no accountability for it. Nobody discussed it in Parliament. Nobody made a fuss. The parliament was given the treaty and they voted on it and that's that. No discussion on the subject of any relevance, that's why most people don't know about it. The only elected body by the people hadn't served it's function on informing their constituents on what is happening.

Okay the ESM. First of all there was plenty of discussion. Now I agree it was not that public, but there was a discussion between countries involved and experts. Your elected officials, those people you elected to run your country, had the discussions and chose what to do. Blame them not the EU, as they are the ones who chose the process and how to handle it. I suspect they chose this way because of the time sensitive issue and the fact that 99.9% of the population would have zero clue on what the hell they were talking about any ways. I mean when is the last time your country had public hearings, debates and votes on what your national bank does?

Not to mention that the average rate of lawpassing in the EU parliament is about 2 per minute in the heated sessions. I mean they just vote like rabbits do what rabbits do best.

Eh?

The EU president, von rompoy, is unelected and he sits with the rest of the heads of states and brokers deals and agreements. And he was named permanent member or permanent president. Why? What is this? It's absurd.

Sigh this again... I admit that calling him "President" is a stupid title.. chief administrator might have been better. He is a hired civil servant, who's sole job is to make sure that things run smoothly. He has very little actual power and is mostly ceremonial. He is the guy that sits at the end of the table, and runs the meetings so they dont go into chaos and holds a speech once in a while and represents the EU along with Barosso at official functions. In the old days, it was the minister of the country that held the EU presidency at the time. All they have done is take away the administrative part and given it to a manager, who carries over from EU presidency to EU presidency (aka country change to country change) and serves as a continuing force.

Barosso is a bureaucrat or as you, part of the civil service, because we the people don't vote for him. If the EU comission president were an electable position, people would be more informed on who the guys running are. Now, we have shultz and Junkers. If I walk down on the street and mention their names, nobody knows who the hell they are and one of them will be the guy who drafts the legislation in the EU for the next 5 years after these elections.

I dont disagree with you, however I also see problems in the fact that we suddenly are starting to elect the civil service as well as our politicians. And you keep forgetting the EU commission drafts legislation based on the wishes of the Council of Ministers and Parliament.... they can not just make **** up and approve it over the heads of countries.

No, it's not the politicians that draft the legislation in my country, but they are accountable for what is voted and what is introduced.

Bull****. No politicians has the intellectual capacity to sit down and write legislation. They have an arm of civil service and lawyers do it based on their wishes. When a politician says, I want to improve this or remove that, then the civil servants get to work to formulate the correct language so to make the legislation legal. That is how ALL governments run.

So if a MP named... John Smith introduces a law to be voted, and that law turns out to be very unpopular, he'll suffer for it. He won't get elected again or he will have to resign due to public pressure and if he has some integrity and the rest of the politicians who previously passed the law will get punished in the elections. Or at least that's the theory.

Of course he gets punished because he is the one ultimately responsible. But in no way did he write the whole law, research it and all the time and effort that goes into such things. Do you really think that the Minister of Finance sits and writes the yearly budget on his PC in Excel... all alone?

How do we punish Barosso for introducing a very unfavorable law? We don't. We can't. He can be the most hated individual in the EU and he won't suffer any repercussions.

Why punish Barosso? He does not vote for anything, nor request the law. That is the council of Ministers, so if anyone is to be punished then it is the elected (for the most part) ministers of each country.

Look. The EU has to be more publicly involved and more publicly accountable. That's what "more" means.

Why?! The EU is such a small part of average life.. something like 15% of all laws and rules have an EU thumb print and many of those are just old national laws that have been given a minimum EU standardisation.

Most of the laws and rules that effect us on a daily basis... criminal, civil, tax, social laws..are all from national parliaments with little if any influence from the EU, and yet you want the EU to be more transparent and "democratic" than national governments? That makes absolutely no sense.
 
The European Commission is akin to the Government formed after an election in a parliamentary system. Except, the European Parliament has no power to choose the Commission, only approve it, and it is basically impossible to remove the government in the current environment. The two main parties would need to agree to vote out the Commission. The duly elected representatives essentially get one chance to vote on the Commission as a result.

Of course, the real problem is the parliamentary system itself does a lot to deprive the public of political pluralism and meaningful elections. Save for the select few with semi-presidential systems, the parliament and government are one and the same. No true division of powers exists and the parties are highly centralized. At the same time, selection of who will represent the party in elections is at best open to a very small portion of the electorate who are members of the party, though generally not without some strong hand played by the national leadership, and at worse to the sole direction of party bureaucrats.

Not surprising that Europe would develop such a system since it evolved from the monarchical system where the legislature was originally a bunch of unelected nobility ruling by right of peerage rather than with the consent of the public. That government and party are still highly centralized in a predominantly top-down manner is to be expected. So, already the system has a democratic deficit even before you bump it up to the EU level.

At the level of the European Council, all but four of the voting members are Prime Ministers. In other words, these are typically the party leaders of the ruling party, chosen by a very small segment of the electorate or by some exclusive group of party members. A large majority of the MEPs typically consists of members of the national parties who run as part of the broader political groups such as the European People's Party or Party of European Socialists. The Upper House, the Council of Ministers, consists of Ministers from the governments of the member states and thus are under the effective control of the European Council whose voting members selected these officials nationally and are traditionally members of the country's ruling party.

Decisions of such import as the selection of the Commission and the appointment of the High Representative, the latter of which has broad powers over foreign policy and defense policy akin to a head of state with no viable means to approve or challenge the selection, are reserved to the European Council who reach decisions based on a voting system that, while seeking to insure individual member states retain influence, gives the largest members a powerful influence over the outcome. In essence, singular individuals with central control over the sizable factions of members of both houses can essentially decide who holds a given position. There is no room for political pluralism and meaningful choice in such a system. As it is building upon a system that already has less political pluralism and meaningful choice than other systems, this greatly increases the democratic deficit.

I think you have one group of Europeans who feel it is undemocratic due to a lack of knowledge about the workings of the system, another group who feel it is sufficiently democratic due to a decent knowledge about the workings of the system, and then there are those who have a deep understanding about the workings of the system and thus recognize it as being an even less democratic system than the first group fears.

Democracy is about checks and balances. Representatives, elected though they may be, are still people and the ability to vote in or out a given representative can only have so much influence over policy. When you have highly centralized political systems with limited pluralism, even the presence of elections is not a sufficient check on the leadership.
 
I agree with most of it.. in fact I would say that the EU has more democracy than some member states or comparable states outside the EU.

The requirements (in most cases) that the CoM and EP agree on legislation on a QMV basis and the added legislative oversight by technocrats, judges, national parliaments, together with the constitutional checks of proportionality and subsidiarity mean that EU governance is, as you say, held at an exceptionally higher standard to those of state parliaments, not to mention that there is no "equivalent to ruling by executive decree or pushing legislation swiftly through a friendly parliament” . The existence of a wide range of checks and balances and the strong division of power both vertically and horizontally represent a degree of accountability that is disproportionate in relation to the EU's degree of competence in national affairs.

Even today, while talking to my own father on this very subject, I discovered that he was not fully aware over what the Council of Ministers was. In the discussion he proposed that we got Senate or 2 house system like in the US/UK, where each country elected 1 or 2 people to represent them or maybe used sitting ministers instead. When I pointed out that this was already going on he was semi shocked. He did not know, as many dont know, that the Council of Ministers is each countries mostly elected minister on the specific area that meets and ultimately agrees on policy, which then also has to be agreed with the Parliament.

Of course unlike the constitutional set up of the EU, only one House in Britain's bicameral legislature is actually elected.

Then there is the argument that we dont directly elect the Commission.. and my answer is do we elect management in individual ministries back home? Of course not. Does the Prime Minister of the UK have his Prime Ministers Secretary or whatever runs the PM office.. does he get elected? No. Does the Chief of Staff of the White House get elected? No.

This is a false analogy. Civil Servants do not have the right of legislative initiative.

Who do i vote against/for if i don't like the European commission?

You're MEP, who will serve the body capable of dismissing the Commission.
 
Last edited:
My opinion is more or less a middle ground ... no, I don't think the democracy deficit is a myth, but it's by far not as bad as many say.

However, I do believe the EU needs more democracy (and especially more political competition!). It's one step in the right direction that the Commission President has to come from the strongest party in the Parliament, but not enough. We need more elections with *clear alternatives* to choose from.

I don't think it's a good idea to politicize the Commission, and it will hardly enhance it's legitimacy. But what we do want to see is an end to the Commission and its legislative initiative, because I think it is abhorrent that such a constitutional right should rest with technocrats, and not the extension of the peoples will in the EP. In defense one might be quick to argue that the Commission has never refused to launch legislation requested by the two legislatures, but I think that is a pretty weak justification. Democracy is best guaranteed by law, not by convention.

The European Parliament has come from humble beginnings. It was only in '79 that it's capacity as a mere advisory body ended with the onset of direct elections. I think the Commission should seek a return to those days for itself; as an institution, it is incredibly learned and active in shaping European affairs. There is no reason why it cannot continue like that in the capacity of a respected advisory body.
 
The party that appoints/doesnt appoint them. Regardless its a meaningless comparison given that the European commission can make rules on its own.

The Commission is usually directed to draw up legislation by the Union legislatures, but does sometimes take its own initiative to draw up legislation if it anticipates a constitutional crises or the need to resolve some other foreseeable issue that could arise.

But anything that comes out of the Commission HAS to be approved by both the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers under the rules governing what is referred to as "co-decision".

In no way can the Commission ever "make rules on its own".
 
Last edited:
Rainman05; said:
The EU president, von rompoy, is unelected and he sits with the rest of the heads of states and brokers deals and agreements

Now, we have shultz and Junkers. If I walk down on the street and mention their names, nobody knows who the hell they are and one of them will be the guy who drafts the legislation in the EU for the next 5 years after these elections.

Van Rompuy chairs the Council, and like Schultz he has no material power aside from acting as a mediator. In fact Shultz in particular performs functions very similar to those of a "Speaker". In what country do they elect there House speaker? I would say the inability of people to recognize a politician in some obscure position in a Union most people take no active interest in (to their detriment) has little to say about the competence of that individual. In fact that argument seems to serve no purpose whatsoever.

How do we punish Barosso for introducing a very unfavorable law? We don't. We can't. He can be the most hated individual in the EU and he won't suffer any repercussions.

The President is responsible for allocating portfolios to members of the Commission and can reshuffle or dismiss them if needed. He determines the Commission's policy agenda and all the legislative proposals it produces, but ultimately he is elected by, and he can be overriden by, the European Parliament which you elect.

Why would you want to punish Barosso for introducing an unfavorable law? He can't give effect to any ​law anyway. It's an exercise in futility. Regardless he doesn't have the power to "introduce" law on his own. If the Commission does however come up with something ludicrous, being considered as first among equals, he would face censure by Parliament if necessary, because he is accountable to Parliament.

But once again, he has no power to draft law per se and certainly no ability to give effect to them.

The party that appoints/doesnt appoint them. Regardless its a meaningless comparison given that the European commission can make rules on its own.

PS: I do agree however that as a general rule of thumb, the right of legislative initiative should always rest with the agents of the electorate and not with technocrats.
 
Last edited:
This is a false analogy. Civil Servants do not have the right of legislative initiative.

Well neither does the Commission per say. Their initiative is limited to existing legislation basically, and ultimately they have no say in if said proposals are approved or not. And this is similar to your standard civil servant in any country who serve the elected officials by writing and proposing legislation to solve problems that the elected officials want solved. That we see it as a proposal coming from the elected official.. the physical proposal, is more than often a lie, since it is civil servants that most likely have written and researched the legislation.
 
Well neither does the Commission per say. Their initiative is limited to existing legislation basically, and ultimately they have no say in if said proposals are approved or not. And this is similar to your standard civil servant in any country who serve the elected officials by writing and proposing legislation to solve problems that the elected officials want solved. That we see it as a proposal coming from the elected official.. the physical proposal, is more than often a lie, since it is civil servants that most likely have written and researched the legislation.

That's not really true. The Commission has a virtual monopoly on the introduction of legislation into the legislative process and is an agenda setter for the EU as a whole. And while the Commission frequently introduces legislation at the behest of the Council or upon the suggestion of Parliament, what form any legislative proposals introduced take is up to the Commission. Of course none of this technically rules out the possibility that the Commission would not dismiss a suggestion coming from the legislatures.

You are right of course in saying that the Commission has no say in giving effect to it's own proposals; that is the job of the two Union legislatures (at least under the ordinary legislative procedure) but no institution of civil servants in any member state yields that kind of collective influence, especially to the extent that they are considered an executive in their own right. This is entirely different to working directly under an elected official.

This being said I do not think that given the checks on the Commissions power, this represents a catastrophic blow to EU democracy like the frenzy media say it is. However, in the context of democracy it's not optimal either. I wouldn't consider it a problem of immediate and pressing urgency; just something I believe will eventually be confronted by the ongoing evolution of the EU's constitutional documents.
 
That's not really true. The Commission has a virtual monopoly on the introduction of legislation into the legislative process and is an agenda setter for the EU as a whole.

See there is the key world.. introduction... not proposal as in they came up with the idea or have the legal ability to come up with ideas.

And while the Commission frequently introduces legislation at the behest of the Council or upon the suggestion of Parliament, what form any legislative proposals introduced take is up to the Commission. Of course none of this technically rules out the possibility that the Commission would not dismiss a suggestion coming from the legislatures.

They can NOT dismiss a suggestion from the Council of Ministers... Parliament they could, but it would be counter productive in the long run.

The Commission pretty much only introduces legislation based on wishes from the Council of Ministers. Why? because that is their job. That is the whole point of the commission.

Look at this way.. you have the Council of Ministers, which is the head minister of the relevant area coming from each member nation. These minister have national aspects they have to deal with (and have a staff for that) and have EU wide issues to deal with (and have the commission for that). They ultimately are the decision makers but there is simply not enough hours in the day for them to do the work of a country and the EU... hell there is not enough hours for them to be on top of everything nationally and we expect them to do it for the EU as well? Hence you have civil servants with administrative power and you delegate out.

You are right of course in saying that the Commission has no say in giving effect to it's own proposals; that is the job of the two Union legislatures (at least under the ordinary legislative procedure) but no institution of civil servants in any member state yields that kind of collective influence, especially to the extent that they are considered an executive in their own right. This is entirely different to working directly under an elected official.

I disagree.. the difference is that the Commission are more public than the ordinary civil servant. Other than that, they are pretty equal on what they do in practice.

This being said I do not think that given the checks on the Commissions power, this represents a catastrophic blow to EU democracy like the frenzy media say it is. However, in the context of democracy it's not optimal either. I wouldn't consider it a problem of immediate and pressing urgency; just something I believe will eventually be confronted by the ongoing evolution of the EU's constitutional documents.

I agree some what. Fixing the constitutional aspect of the EU is far more important, and in doing so you also (or can) fix the whatever issues there are with the Commission. Right now we are still on the Treaty of Rome with add-ons.. that this patchwork treaty crap gives many issues that we are unable to solve without a total revision into one new treaty/constitution/piece of paper.
 
See there is the key world.. introduction... not proposal as in they came up with the idea or have the legal ability to come up with ideas.

They can NOT dismiss a suggestion from the Council of Ministers... Parliament they could, but it would be counter productive in the long run.

The Commission pretty much only introduces legislation based on wishes from the Council of Ministers. Why? because that is their job. That is the whole point of the commission.

I disagree.. the difference is that the Commission are more public than the ordinary civil servant. Other than that, they are pretty equal on what they do in practice.

You've actually stated my case perfectly. According to the facts you lay out:


  • The Commission has the ability to submit draft proposals and thus set the agenda.
  • The Commission may dismiss a suggestion from the only directly elected European authority but not the indirectly elected CoM (and even this mandate is somewhat strained)

Actually it's not too reductive to say that these two points form the core of what it is the Commission does, and none of it reflects the sort of power civil servants have in any nation to my knowledge. I say their capacity as professional administrators to conduct the technicalities politicians are not really adept at doing, is really where the similarity ends.

Look at this way.. you have the Council of Ministers, which is the head minister of the relevant area coming from each member nation. These minister have national aspects they have to deal with (and have a staff for that) and have EU wide issues to deal with (and have the commission for that). They ultimately are the decision makers but there is simply not enough hours in the day for them to do the work of a country and the EU... hell there is not enough hours for them to be on top of everything nationally and we expect them to do it for the EU as well? Hence you have civil servants with administrative power and you delegate out.

I'm not disagreeing that we need expert involvement at every level of policy making, it just doesn't need to occur in this context. You say it yourself: leaders nationally doubtless have hundreds of people working beneath them who deal with the technical aspects of political administration (and usually perform these duties brilliantly and are often publicly under appreciated) yet to empower them within their own institutional structure in this way is, needless to say, unnecessary.

I champion completely the continuation of the Commission as a necessary body; the bulk of the EU's work is incredibly technical and most members of the public don't see the vast array of issues that are worked on daily in the Union and even if they do, most simply have no understanding of them (as the author says, issues of "low salience with the electorate"). But there is no reason why this great work cannot continue without legislative initiative. In my view by no means does this initiative predicate the importance of the Commission as a technocratic body or the importance of what it does at it's core or the sort of expertise that it provides.

The European Parliament has come from humble beginnings. It was only in '79 that it's capacity as a mere advisory body ended with the onset of direct elections. I think the Commission should seek a return to those days for itself; as an institution, it is incredibly learned and active in shaping European affairs. It should continue shaping Europe but in the capacity of a non-elected, non-voting respected and external advisory body to Parliament.
 
Last edited:
You've actually stated my case perfectly. According to the facts you lay out:


  • The Commission has the ability to submit draft proposals and thus set the agenda.


  • Draft on behalf of yes, set the agenda no. The Agenda is set by the country in charge of the EU at the given time.

    [*]The Commission may dismiss a suggestion from the only directly elected European authority but not the indirectly elected CoM (and even this mandate is somewhat strained)

    Saying that the CoM is indirectly elected is miss-leading. They are representatives of each country and in most cases also directly elected politicians.

    Actually it's not too reductive to say that these two points form the core of what it is the Commission does, and none of it reflects the sort of power civil servants have in any nation to my knowledge. I say their capacity as professional administrators to conduct the technicalities politicians are not really adept at doing, is really where the similarity ends.

    Well then you dont know how a democratic country actually works. If you think that your elected politician not only has the intellectual capacity but also the time to micromanage the area of which they are in charge, then you would be very badly mistaken. Elected officials are deeply dependent on civil servants and aides to do much of the work that they ultimately are judged on. You can not tell me that a elected person who's main educational basis is being a teacher, can suddenly start write complicated rules and regulations that meet existing practices and all that.. Hence the difference between the Commission and the average country's civil servant staff, is that the head civil servant is a known often former politician with a very public face relative to the behind the scenes lead civil servant... ultimately they do the same thing on behalf of their political masters.

    Yes the Commission has one added aspect where they present/propose legislation also, but that is a practical aspect since the political masters are far too busy in their home country to have the same involvement in the EU as they have at home. You can call this a flaw, but that is how the organisation was built long ago.

    I'm not disagreeing that we need expert involvement at every level of policy making, it just doesn't need to occur in this context. You say it yourself: leaders nationally doubtless have hundreds of people working beneath them who deal with the technical aspects of political administration (and usually perform these duties brilliantly and are often publicly under appreciated) yet to empower them within their own institutional structure in this way is, needless to say, unnecessary.

    I champion completely the continuation of the Commission as a necessary body; the bulk of the EU's work is incredibly technical and most members of the public don't see the vast array of issues that are worked on daily in the Union and even if they do, most simply have no understanding of them (as the author says, issues of "low salience with the electorate"). But there is no reason why this great work cannot continue without legislative initiative. In my view by no means does this initiative predicate the importance of the Commission as a technocratic body or the importance of what it does at it's core or the sort of expertise that it provides.

    I see what you are getting at, you want to remove the legislative aspect from the Commission and move it to the Parliament.

    The European Parliament has come from humble beginnings. It was only in '79 that it's capacity as a mere advisory body ended with the onset of direct elections. I think the Commission should seek a return to those days for itself; as an institution, it is incredibly learned and active in shaping European affairs. It should continue shaping Europe but in the capacity of a non-elected, non-voting respected advisory body to Parliament with the same level and importance in contributions to the technicalities of law making as say, Coreper in the CoM.

    It is an interesting idea, but has one major problem. You will move an insane amount of power from the Council of Ministers to the Parliament, and hence move power away from the countries to the EU.. and that frankly aint gonna happen any time soon.

    There is a some what balance at the moment. The Commission on behalf of the CoM proposes legislation, that is discussed and voted on in the EU Parliament, and then approved ultimately by the CoM. That is a balanced tipped slightly towards the individual countries instead of a federal Europe.

    Ultimately the next step I suspect is that the Parliament will be allowed more legislative proposal aspects than they have now, and that will some what balance it out a tad more, but moving the main legislative aspect away from the CoM... will not happen any time soon.
 
Draft on behalf of yes, set the agenda no. The Agenda is set by the country in charge of the EU at the given time.

Well, no, the Commission’s formally exclusive right of legislative initiative is the most obvious way for it to set the primary EU’s political agenda.

By the way, are you sure that the Commission cannot act independently by introducing it's own proposals?

If you think that your elected politician not only has the intellectual capacity but also the time to micromanage the area of which they are in charge, then you would be very badly mistaken.Elected officials are deeply dependent on civil servants and aides to do much of the work that they ultimately are judged on. You can not tell me that a elected person who's main educational basis is being a teacher, can suddenly start write complicated rules and regulations that meet existing practices and all that.. Hence the difference between the Commission and the average country's civil servant staff, is that the head civil servant is a known often former politician with a very public face relative to the behind the scenes lead civil servant... ultimately they do the same thing on behalf of their political masters.

Do you read one paragraph and respond before reading the next paragraph, or something? I actually concurred with you, in fact you have pretty much duplicated what it is I said about civil servants and their role in government. So if I don't know how a democracy actually works then it's not reflecting well on you.

My repudiation was that to empower them within their own institutional structure in this way is unnecessary and not like any other nation state. The fact that they are technocrats is just about the only similarity. Commissioners go well and beyond the expected jurisdiction of experts because experts do not set the agenda, do not have the ability to refuse parliaments request, are not responsible for overseeing (directly, at least) the implementation of laws and are not encapsulated within their own body with legal character.

Let's set the record straight before you get the wrong idea again: I am in favor what the Commissioners do (except initiative obviously), I just don't think your comparison to the usual civil servants was an honest one.

Yes the Commission has one added aspect where they present/propose legislation also, but that is a practical aspect since the political masters are far too busy in their home country to have the same involvement in the EU as they have at home. You can call this a flaw, but that is how the organisation was built long ago.

Who said anything about the Council? Anyway in your opinion, do you think even with Coreper's support its unlikely that we will ever see the CoM as a body with legislative initiative? On that point i agree with you.

It is an interesting idea, but has one major problem. You will move an insane amount of power from the Council of Ministers to the Parliament, and hence move power away from the countries to the EU.. and that frankly aint gonna happen any time soon.

You're going on the assumption that my proposals would not operate within ordinary legislative procedures. Actually the enumeration of powers between Parliament and CoM would be maintained. Any power the Parliament receives the CoM would basically receive except the CoM would probably maintain an ultimate say, because you said it - there is no political ammunition to tip the balance towards MEP's.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom