Baroness Ashton on TV being asked about Egypt?

loldog

So who is she supposed to be representing when she speaks? I don't recall having any say in choosing her for that role, or van Rompuy either.

They've just got rid of an unelected dictator in Egypt and no we have unelected "leaders" supposedly speaking for the people of Europe? Seems like a regression.:rolleyes:

When's the EU going to fix their democratic deficit?

.

later12

I agree with the issue of a democratic deficit.

To borrow a term coined by Conor Cruise O'Brien, we have the almost GUBU situation whereby Irish people run to their locally elected politicians to represent them in a parliament and a Cabinet far far away in another jurisdiction.

I say almost, of course, because the situation is not unprecedented.

Scofflaw

loldog wrote: »

So who is she supposed to be representing when she speaks? I don't recall having any say in choosing her for that role, or van Rompuy either.

They've just got rid of an unelected dictator in Egypt and no we have unelected "leaders" supposedly speaking for the people of Europe? Seems like a regression.:rolleyes:

When's the EU going to fix their democratic deficit?

.

She represents the views of the European Council - that is, the collective view of all the European governments, who are in turn elected by the citizens of each country. To a lesser extent she represents the views of the European Parliament.

The only way the EU's representative can directly represent the people of Europe is by electing a single European government. Until that improbable and currently undesirable day, the only way of representing Europe is by representing the joint decision of the governments of the EU Member States. Similarly, that's who she is appointed by, much as the Irish Minister for Foreign Affairs is appointed by the Irish Cabinet.

In exactly the same way, a UN decision is not taken by the UN, but represents the collective decision of all the member governments - and while that's the basis on which Ireland is allowed to commit troops abroad, there is surprisingly little complaint about it being undemocratic, or about not having elected Bank Ki-Moon, despite those things happening on exactly the same basis.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Corsendonk

loldog wrote: »

So who is she supposed to be representing when she speaks? I don't recall having any say in choosing her for that role, or van Rompuy either.

They've just got rid of an unelected dictator in Egypt and no we have unelected "leaders" supposedly speaking for the people of Europe? Seems like a regression.:rolleyes:

When's the EU going to fix their democratic deficit?

.

Last week commentators complained that she hadn't took the lead for Europe and spoke on the EU position on Egypt.

Scofflaw

Essexboy wrote:

"Baroness Ashton has come bottom of the class in a survey rating the performance of European Commissioners, the only EU executive regarded as having "failed" after their first year in office"

The thread has a topic - who does Baroness Ashton represent? It is not an opportunity to post random material criticising her - if you want to do that, start a separate thread.

Next repeat of your irrelevant post on this thread will be red-carded as well as deleted.

moderately,
Scofflaw

loldog

Not much point in discussing anything in these circumstances.

I think she's great, she's absolutely the leader we deserve, etc...

.

Scofflaw

loldog wrote: »

Not much point in discussing anything in these circumstances.

I think she's great, she's absolutely the leader we deserve, etc...

.

You asked a factual question at the beginning of the thread, and tagged the thread for Talktoeu. If you actually intended that question to be a rhetorical lead-in to slagging Ashton, you shouldn't have tagged it as requesting a factual answer from Talktoeu representatives.

If you're happy enough to remove the tag, then we can reinstate the otherwise irrelevant posts.

moderately,
Scofflaw

later12

An erudite and worldly woman engaged in an entirely democratic process. Down With the OP; Long Live The Right Honourable Lady Ashton of Upholland of Her Majesty's most Honourable Privy Council!

Essexboy

Scofflaw wrote: »

She represents the views of the European Council - that is, the collective view of all the European governments, who are in turn elected by the citizens of each country. To a lesser extent she represents the views of the European Parliament.

The only way the EU's representative can directly represent the people of Europe is by electing a single European government. Until that improbable and currently undesirable day, the only way of representing Europe is by representing the joint decision of the governments of the EU Member States. Similarly, that's who she is appointed by, much as the Irish Minister for Foreign Affairs is appointed by the Irish Cabinet.

In exactly the same way, a UN decision is not taken by the UN, but represents the collective decision of all the member governments - and while that's the basis on which Ireland is allowed to commit troops abroad, there is surprisingly little complaint about it being undemocratic, or about not having elected Bank Ki-Moon, despite those things happening on exactly the same basis.

cordially,
Scofflaw

much as the Irish Minister for Foreign Affairs is appointed by the Irish Cabinet.

The Irish Minister for Foreign Affairs will have stood for election to the Dáil
and can claim a direct, popular mandate. Ashton has never stood for election, either in Europe or the UK.

Scofflaw

Essexboy wrote: »

much as the Irish Minister for Foreign Affairs is appointed by the Irish Cabinet.

The Irish Minister for Foreign Affairs will have stood for election to the Dáil
and can claim a direct, popular mandate. Ashton has never stood for election, either in Europe or the UK.

The Minister for Foreign Affairs can claim a direct popular mandate to represent his or her constituency, but nobody is elected to the position of Minister for Foreign Affairs, so nobody has a direct popular mandate to be Minister for Foreign Affairs. Indeed, when it comes to the Cabinet appointing one of their members to a Ministry, there isn't even a process of parliamentary refusal as there is with members of the Commission.

There are very good reasons for having an unelected Commission, and there are very few good arguments in favour of electing them directly. It's undeniably popular to throw the word 'unelected' around as if it was somehow synonymous with 'tyrannical', but direct elections to technical positions are a very arguable good.

cordially,
Scofflaw

PES activist

Scoflaw is right. Cathy Ashton represents the consensus of views of the European Council. She is also accountable to the European Parliament for the policies she follows. Article 18.1-2 TEU refers:

1. The European Council, acting by a qualified majority, with the agreement of the President of the Commission, shall appoint the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. The European Council may end his term of office by the same procedure.

2. The High Representative shall conduct the Union’s common foreign and security policy. He shall contribute by his proposals to the development of that policy, which he shall carry out as mandated by the Council. The same shall apply to the common security and defence policy.

Like all members of the European Commission she is appointed by the Council and confirmed (or otherwise) in office by the Parliament. We do not have an elected government in the EU which would add that additiional layer of democratic legitimacy that some people here are calling for. A directly-elected EU government would, however, be a significant advance towards the EU becoming a federal state, a position that those who attack the EU's democratic credentials most fiercely are themselves stridently opposed to.

later12

Scofflaw wrote: »

Indeed, when it comes to the Cabinet appointing one of their members to a Ministry, there isn't even a process of parliamentary refusal as there is with members of the Commission.

One of their members pertaining to members of the existing cabinet, no. While one can be reshuffled or apportioned extra duties, one cannot simply be appointed into the cabinet without parliamentary recourse to a debate on the nomination(s) and a subsequent Dáil vote.

There is very much a process of parliamentary refusal persuant with Article 13 of Bunreacht na hÉireann.

There is also the significant issue that such an individual will invariably have been elected by the popular and democratic vote as a representative of the people, be that in the capacity of a Teachta Dála, a Minister, a Committee member, or whatever.

No equivalent pre-requisite exists with regards to the European representatives, and I would suggest that such a situation represents a very real democratic deficit. They are little more than the European equivalent of British Peers.

PES activist wrote:

....the EU becoming a federal state, a position that those who attack the EU's democratic credentials most fiercely are themselves stridently opposed to.

You think that those who attack the EU's obviously lacking democratic credentials must, by default, be opposed to closer European integration? Seriously?

Obviously there are groups like UKIP who quite correctly point out the bloc's deficiencies. They are quite right to do so even if they support a withdrawal as opposed to an advancement to closer union. However there are many other people like myself who are completely in favour of more democratic representation as well as a more integrated system. So your statement needs to be qualified.

Scofflaw

later10 wrote: »

One of their members pertaining to members of the existing cabinet, no. While one can be reshuffled or apportioned extra duties, one cannot simply be appointed into the cabinet without parliamentary recourse to a debate on the nomination(s) and a subsequent Dáil vote.

There is very much a process of parliamentary refusal persuant with Article 13 of Bunreacht na hÉireann.

I stand corrected on that! It doesn't make much difference in our whipped Dáil, but it's there alright.

later10 wrote: »

There is also the significant issue that such an individual will invariably have been elected by the popular and democratic vote as a representative of the people, be that in the capacity of a Teachta Dála, a Minister, a Committee member, or whatever.

There is no "whatever" about it, though. No Minister has a direct popular mandate to be Minister, and never will do unless we hold elections directly for the Ministries.

later10 wrote: »

No equivalent pre-requisite exists with regards to the European representatives, and I would suggest that such a situation represents a very real democratic deficit. They are little more than the European equivalent of British Peers.

No, they're the equivalent of the Irish Attorney-General, the US judges of the Supreme Court, and other senior technical posts. The Commission is the senior committee of the EU executive, not its legislature.

Have you ever considered why it might not be a good idea to elect the Commission?

cordially,
Scofflaw

PES activist

later10 wrote: »

You think that those who attack the EU's obviously lacking democratic credentials must, by default, be opposed to closer European integration? Seriously?

Obviously there are groups like UKIP who quite correctly point out the bloc's deficiencies. They are quite right to do so even if they support a withdrawal as opposed to an advancement to closer union. However there are many other people like myself who are completely in favour of more democratic representation as well as a more integrated system. So your statement needs to be qualified.

Hi, later10, I agree with you and thought that was clear from my qualification "most fiercely". If it was not sufficiently clear I am happy to make it so. There are indeed many people, including myself, who are working to strengthen the democratic legitimacy of the EU's institutions. In particular, I am heavilly involved in a campaign for the Party of European Socialists (PES) to select its candidate for Commission President, for the EP elections in 2014, by a process of democratic primaries. The following website may be of some interest to you: Campaign for a PES Primary

Essexboy

Scofflaw wrote: »

I stand corrected on that! It doesn't make much difference in our whipped Dáil, but it's there alright.



There is no "whatever" about it, though. No Minister has a direct popular mandate to be Minister, and never will do unless we hold elections directly for the Ministries.



No, they're the equivalent of the Irish Attorney-General, the US judges of the Supreme Court, and other senior technical posts. The Commission is the senior committee of the EU executive, not its legislature.

Have you ever considered why it might not be a good idea to elect the Commission?

cordially,
Scofflaw

The Commission is the EU executive. The Irish Attorney-General, the US judges of the Supreme Court, etc. do not propose/initiate legislation. What role did the European Assembly play into the recent " bailout"?

later12

Scofflaw wrote: »

There is no "whatever" about it, though. No Minister has a direct popular mandate to be Minister, and never will do unless we hold elections directly for the Ministries.

I don't think the problem is that Ministers are not directly elected as Ministers - they are ordained with a common national responsibility as legislators i.e. as elected public representatives in accordance with the democratic vote. While many may choose to spend their time processing passports and filling potholes, their national role is enshrined in the Constitution, which stipulates that the Government shall be held responsible to the members of Dáil Éireann. So the public are hopefully aware, during an election, that their candidates if elected, will have national responsibility.

Incidentally, a maximum of two unelected inidividuals may be appointed to particular cabinet portfolios by the Taoiseach. While I think that would not be a desirable situation, such an individual would have the right to enter the Dáil, speak and be heard in the Dáil and must be answerable directly to the Dáil. I am not quite convinced that Baroness Ashton has the same accountability in the European Parliament.

Apart from the accountability issue, the major issue that people tend to have with individuals like Baroness Ashton in particular, it seems to me, is that she has never stood successfully or unsuccesfully for a democratic election and has no public mandate as anybody's representative of any kind.

Personally I find it an even more convincing fault that she seems entirely unsuited to her post and was only put there as a concession to the UK on having failed to secure the Presidency of the European Council for Tony Blair and she had the good luck that David Miliband preferred his politics British. However, the complaint about the lack of her democratic mandate is entirely legitimate in itself.

Have you ever considered why it might not be a good idea to elect the Commission?

Of course. There are two main advantages.

1. The first is that the Union may appoint a technically competent and professional candidate to a position, such as may perhaps not be found among the pool of elected candidates.
2. The second is that such an individual may have the courage to act on principle against the apparent populist wishes of the people on policy issues for long term benefit.

The problem with the first point is that the European public could just as well make a decision for themselves on the qualification of their candidates for a particular role. Furthermore, I have no doubt you know enough about Lady Ashton to be aware of her blatent unsuitability in the role to which she has been appointed.

The problem with the second point is that all politicians are expected to perform their duties to the benefit of their electorate anyway. And if a policy were to be particularly unpopular with the public then perhaps it is for the best that it not be pursued on those grounds, for such is the very basis of democracy.

PES activist

There's a third point, later10. If the European Commision had a democratic mandate, for example, if it were filled out of the European Parliament as most national government's are, then that would be a significant step towards a federal Europe. It's a step I would welcome, as it would answer the democratic deficit as far as the Commission is concerned, would propel real political choice to the fore in place of government-to-government horse-trading and would ensure, as a consequence, a sharper and more effective Union response to challenges such as the current crisis in jobs and the public finances.

Such a development would, however, require a treaty change and given the clear federalist consequences of such a change would be highly unlikely to pass in current circumstances.

That's why I'm involved in an alternative campaign to democratise the Commission. The main Euro-parties have all agreed that they will present candidates for Commission President at the EP elections in 2014, taking advantage of the Lisbon innovation that the Commission President should reflect the outcome of the EP elections.

In order to build on that, the PES has set up a working group under Ruairi Quinn's leadership to bring forward plans to choose the PES candidate for Commission President in a democratic and open manner. My campaign's preferred option is for a democratic party-primary system much like exists in the US. The PES candidate, having been democratically selected, will then embody the manifesto of the mainsteam Left in Europe for the EP elections and if the PES are the largest party will then claim the nomination of the European Council for Commission President.

Such a proposal is achievable within the scope of existing treaties and if enacted will go some way to establishing a democratic mandate for the policies pursued by the European Commission.

Scofflaw

Essexboy wrote: »

The Commission is the EU executive. The Irish Attorney-General, the US judges of the Supreme Court, etc. do not propose/initiate legislation. What role did the European Assembly play into the recent " bailout"?

Yes, the Commission is the executive, which is not the same as the legislature. The Commission has the formal right to initiate legislation, but that does not make it the legislature, because except in small technical matters, the Commission's right of initiation is exercised at the request of the Council and/or the Parliament, not on its own initiative, and the Commission cannot pass the legislation, which is again passed by the Council and/or the Parliament.

As to who made the decisions in the Irish bailout, the answer is the European Council and the Council of Ministers.

The European Assembly wasn't ever going to have played a part, because there is no such institution.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Martin 2

PES activist wrote: »

....

That's why I'm involved in an alternative campaign to democratise the Commission. The main Euro-parties have all agreed that they will present candidates for Commission President at the EP elections in 2014, taking advantage of the Lisbon innovation that the Commission President should reflect the outcome of the EP elections.

In order to build on that, the PES has set up a working group under Ruairi Quinn's leadership to bring forward plans to choose the PES candidate for Commission President in a democratic and open manner. My campaign's preferred option is for a democratic party-primary system much like exists in the US. The PES candidate, having been democratically selected, will then embody the manifesto of the mainsteam Left in Europe for the EP elections and if the PES are the largest party will then claim the nomination of the European Council for Commission President.

Such a proposal is achievable within the scope of existing treaties and if enacted will go some way to establishing a democratic mandate for the policies pursued by the European Commission.

@PES activist
That's quite an innovative idea and given that it can be done within the framework of the existing treaties, I'm for it.

@OP
The posts of President of the European Council (full time) and the High Representative for Security and Foreign Affairs (also VP of the EC) were created by the Lisbon Treaty. We debated and then ratified the Lisbon Treaty thereby approving these posts and the selection process. Whereas we may not have chosen Ashton directly, we did give the Council the power to select her. Furthermore, it was through this process that elected EU governments including ours selected Ashton as HR, and in the case of Ashton her appointment was also approved by our elected MEPs since she's also the VP of the EC. There is democratic traceability in ever step of the process.
There may be more democratic means of filing these positions, however, one cannot say that the current system is undemocratic and the extent to which a democratic deficit may exist depends on ones frame of reference. At some stage in the future we may see pan European elections or parliamentary votes (by MEPs) for senior EU posts, however, until then I'm okay with the current system. Whether good candidates were chosen is a different argument.

PES activist

Thanks Martin.

TalkToEU: John

loldog wrote: »

So who is she supposed to be representing when she speaks? I don't recall having any say in choosing her for that role, or van Rompuy either.

They've just got rid of an unelected dictator in Egypt and no we have unelected "leaders" supposedly speaking for the people of Europe? Seems like a regression.:rolleyes:

When's the EU going to fix their democratic deficit?

.

Hi loldog,
This seems to have been discussed at length already and we'd agree with the assertions that Catherine Ashton, as High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, acts on behalf of the wishes of each member state's democratically elected representatives.

In many ways, when she appears in public, or issues a statement, she represents the collected and agreed views each member state on a particular issue. Essentially she is the spokesperson and facilitator of an agreed foreign policy set of by the elected representatives of each member state.

loldog

TalkToEU: John wrote: »

Hi loldog,
This seems to have been discussed at length already and we'd agree with the assertions that Catherine Ashton, as High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, acts on behalf of the wishes of each member state's democratically elected representatives.

In many ways, when she appears in public, or issues a statement, she represents the collected and agreed views each member state on a particular issue. Essentially she is the spokesperson and facilitator of an agreed foreign policy set of by the elected representatives of each member state.

Don't you think it's a little rich that we have unelected "leaders" like Barroso, von Rompuy and Ashton lecturing other nations about freedom and democracy?

The EU is scared stiff of the electorate. After France and the Netherlands rejected the EU Constitution, it was repackaged as the "Lisbon Treaty" and of course referendums were avoided if at all possible, except in the case of Ireland, where it was again rejected. But the EU architects decided they knew better and forced Ireland to run another referendum with threats of dire consequences. Even Barroso came over here during the campaign.

The EU is forever discredited in my eyes. The whole thing will have to be scrapped. Nothing else will do at this stage, the fundamental principles of democracy have been trampled on.

.

oscarBravo

I think it's a little rich - hell, I think it's utterly shameful - to complain about a lack of democracy in the EU when people in other countries are literally dying to get anything like the level of democracy that we, as citizens of the EU, enjoy.

How much control do Ashton, Van Rompuy and Barroso exercise over your daily life? In what way would your life be noticeably better if those roles were elected?

RandomName2

loldog wrote: »

So who is she supposed to be representing when she speaks? I don't recall having any say in choosing her for that role, or van Rompuy either.

They've just got rid of an unelected dictator in Egypt and no we have unelected "leaders" supposedly speaking for the people of Europe? Seems like a regression.:rolleyes:

When's the EU going to fix their democratic deficit?

Ashton is meant to represent the views of Europe as a whole, like any foreign minister, and that by extension, means us.

Europe is one of the few governments in the Western world where ministerial positions are granted to those who have not been elected. For the natural pedants it is necessary to point out that few people are ever elected to ministerial positions directly, but they at least must be elected to their national parliaments to be appointed in the first place. Equally it is necessary to point out that although menial civil servants are not elected to their positions by the public, that these people do not equate to ministers.

Thankfully Ashton and von Rompouy have been virtually invisible from public view since their appointments, meaning that they are merely a waste of money, and little more.

oscarBravo

RandomName2 wrote: »

Europe is one of the few governments in the Western world where ministerial positions are granted to those who have not been elected.

The other notable example being that bastion of unelected dictators, the United States of America.

Equally it is necessary to point out that although menial civil servants are not elected to their positions by the public, that these people do not equate to ministers.

Neither are Supreme Court judges, but I guess they're just "menial civil servants" too.

RandomName2

oscarBravo wrote: »

The other notable example being that bastion of unelected dictators, the United States of America. Neither are Supreme Court judges, but I guess they're just "menial civil servants" too.

Are Ministers in America unelected members of the public too? Or are you merely using the electoral college as a very bad analogy?

Last I heard being a judge was both a non-ministerial and non-political position, but to borrow one of your rhetorical devices, I might be just confused in the matter.

oscarBravo

RandomName2 wrote: »

Are Ministers in America unelected members of the public too?

Who elected the Secretary of State? Or the Secretary of Defence? Or any member of the cabinet, other than the President?

Last I heard being a judge was both a non-ministerial and non-political position, but to borrow one of your rhetorical devices, I might be just confused in the matter.

Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't realise that we were restricting the terms of reference of the conversation to ministerial, political positions only. For the sake of argument I'll go along with your apparent belief that secretaries general of government departments and senior judicial figures play such an insignificant part in the running of the country that it doesn't make any difference whether or not they are elected, which means we only have to worry about the fact that America is a fascist dictatorship.

RandomName2

oscarBravo wrote: »

Who elected the Secretary of State? Or the Secretary of Defence? Or any member of the cabinet, other than the President? Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't realise that we were restricting the terms of reference of the conversation to ministerial, political positions only. For the sake of argument I'll go along with your apparent belief that secretaries general of government departments and senior judicial figures play such an insignificant part in the running of the country that it doesn't make any difference whether or not they are elected, which means we only have to worry about the fact that America is a fascist dictatorship.

Actually I will give you the position of Secretary of State of the US. Unfortunately, present secretary excluded, they tend to be just members of the public or military. This is unfortunate for a country that prides itself on its democracy. Nevertheless at least the Secretary is approved by an entirely American Senate.

Great hyperbole on your part, but your putting words in other peoples' mouths is, at best, tiresome.

oscarBravo

RandomName2 wrote: »

Actually I will give you the position of Secretary of State of the US. Unfortunately, present secretary excluded, they tend to be just members of the public or military.

The present secretary is a member of the public, and is not a member of the military, so I have no idea what point you're trying to make. You also seem to be missing the point that the entire cabinet - not just State - is appointed by the president.

This is unfortunate for a country that prides itself on its democracy.

And yet, somehow, they cope, and manage to consider themselves a democratic country.

This means one of two things: either it's possible for a democratic country to have unelected appointees to executive positions, or else America is wrong about its democratic credentials. Perhaps you'd care to enlighten them.

Personally, I think it's possible for a country - or a supranational organisation - to be considered democratic without every single senior political (or judicial) figure having to be elected.

Nevertheless at least the Secretary is approved by an entirely American Senate.

And Catherine Ashton was approved by the entirely European (and entirely elected) European Parliament.

Great hyperbole on your part, but your putting words in other peoples' mouths is, at best, tiresome.

It's just my way of responding to what I see as a rather mealy-mouthed style of argument through innuendo, which I also find tiresome. If you'd rather I didn't put words in your mouth, you could always try stating your case plainly.

For example, it seems to me that you feel that every executive political position should be directly elected, and that it is undemocratic to have an executive position filled by appointment. In this, you doubtless find the executive branch of the US government to be mostly undemocratic, since only the chief executive is directly elected (not that he is, but that's beside the point for now). Your distaste for this undemocratic executive is tempered by the fact that the members are approved by an elected assembly; and yet this is no consolation when it works in the same way within the EU.

Similarly, you decry as undemocratic the appointment of executive positions, but are careful to avoid any discussion of whether or not it is democratic to have senior (or indeed, any) members of the judiciary appointed rather than elected. Whether this is because you don't feel the judiciary are important enough to warrant democracy, or because you have some other undisclosed reason for not wanting to include them in the scope of the argument, remains - as with so much of your contribution - opaque.

So if I am forced to caricature your positions somewhat in order to attempt to draw you out on just exactly what the hell your problem is with the EU, perhaps you could reflect on the possibility that the reason I feel the need to do so is to highlight the fact that you so rarely come out and state a clear and defensible position on anything, preferring instead to pepper the forum with cryptic little comments, questions and criticisms - and to retreat behind a shield of meta-argument and faux-ennui when inconsistencies in your arguments are highlighted.

Or don't. I don't care.

View

RandomName2 wrote: »

Nevertheless at least the Secretary is approved by an entirely American Senate.

And Commissioners are approved by the entirely European Parliament...

View

RandomName2 wrote: »

Europe is one of the few governments in the Western world where ministerial positions are granted to those who have not been elected. For the natural pedants it is necessary to point out that few people are ever elected to ministerial positions directly, but they at least must be elected to their national parliaments to be appointed in the first place.

From memory, it is perfectly possible that 2 people can become Ministers (out of a minimum of 7) under the provisions of Bunreacht na hEireann without being elected to the Oireachtas.

meglome

I'm trying to understand your point here.

loldog wrote: »

Don't you think it's a little rich that we have unelected "leaders" like Barroso, von Rompuy and Ashton lecturing other nations about freedom and democracy?

No ministers are elected in this country, they are chosen by the elected representatives, exactly the same as the European parliament. So are we not democratic either?

loldog wrote: »

The EU is scared stiff of the electorate. After France and the Netherlands rejected the EU Constitution, it was repackaged as the "Lisbon Treaty" and of course referendums were avoided if at all possible, except in the case of Ireland, where it was again rejected. But the EU architects decided they knew better and forced Ireland to run another referendum with threats of dire consequences. Even Barroso came over here during the campaign.

I believe 17 countries approved the EU constitution, two of which through a referendum. And as you point out two countries voted against it. But since the EU is democratic and needs consensus that was the end of that.

I am always fascinated by people who decry the lack of referendums in the EU. All the while missing the point they are trying to force their views on the how these democratic states choose to run their own affairs. Some countries, notably Germany, have banned binding referenda. They better appreciate that people voting on complex issues they may not fully understand the implications of is not necessarily a good idea.

I'm also fascinated that people seem perfectly happy our constitution allows us to vote on these issues but are happy to ignore or complain about that same constitution when it allows the elected government to call as many as they like.

Do you not think the EU needed reform? What sense would it be to remove the reforms from EU constitution put into the Lisbon treaty when no one voted against the reforms in the first place.

loldog wrote: »

The EU is forever discredited in my eyes. The whole thing will have to be scrapped. Nothing else will do at this stage, the fundamental principles of democracy have been trampled on.

From your posts I think you'd find reason to have a problem with the EU no matter what.

RandomName2

View wrote: »

From memory, it is perfectly possible that 2 people can become Ministers (out of a minimum of 7) under the provisions of Bunreacht na hEireann without being elected to the Oireachtas.

Interesting. But has it ever been used?

RandomName2

oscarBravo wrote: »

It's just my way of responding to what I see as a rather mealy-mouthed style of argument through innuendo, which I also find tiresome. If you'd rather I didn't put words in your mouth, you could always try stating your case plainly.

Was that an apology from oscarBravo? :eek:

oscarBravo wrote: »

So if I am forced to caricature your positions somewhat in order to attempt to draw you out on just exactly what the hell your problem is with the EU, perhaps you could reflect on the possibility that the reason I feel the need to do so is to highlight the fact that you so rarely come out and state a clear and defensible position on anything, preferring instead to pepper the forum with cryptic little comments, questions and criticisms - and to retreat behind a shield of meta-argument and faux-ennui when inconsistencies in your arguments are highlighted.

Or don't. I don't care.

Or.. no. It was a fin de siècle wraped up in HTML. Poor oscarBravo wearies at the obstinence of apparent euroskepticism...

Or rather it was just a method to call me 'sneaky' by paraphatic means. Which seems to happen all too often. "I will now call this person a xenophobe because (a) that will contain all of the unpleasant baggage that the word 'racist' bears and (b) I can't be pulled up for using the term 'racist'." Genius! It also relates to your typical ad-homenem modus opperandi that you seem to believe that belittling the poster will discredit his post.

Another thing is using absolutes - and what absolutes! If the democracy of America is criticised for not being perfect, the person criticising it must be claiming it to be fascistic. If they claim to not be calling it fascistic they must be contradicting themselves.

'what the hell your problem is with the EU'

Well that would be outside the scope of the OP, would it not? Getting bogged down in tangents?

I'd ask you, what makes you feel that national determination is worthless? Because that clearly is your view, even if you have chosen to pepper the forum with cryptic little comments, questions and criticisms - and to retreat behind a shield of meta-argument and faux-ennui instead of stating your case clearly.

You are not merely saying that the limitations of the democracy of the EU are tolerable - you are actively defending them. I suspect that that is because you believe that the current big idea for European hegemony is one worth defending. I'm sure that every big idea for European hegemony had its defenders. One wonders if the ultimate failures of all of them can be somewhat attributed to the blind doggedness and aggressivenes of such proponents?

View

RandomName2 wrote: »

Interesting. But has it ever been used?

We certainly had one (Junior?) Minister from the Seanad for a while in the 80's. I don't know if he was the only one ever but - again from memory - I believe he was one of the "Taoiseach's 11" (i.e. appointed to the Seanad).

It is been a long while since we only had 7 Government Ministers though - personally, I think half the government departments (and their associated Ministers) should be abolished with their functions being devolved to local/regional level. It might reduce this sense of "enforced helplessness" that the current structure forces on us as we be forced to make decisions and live with their consequences closer to home.

oscarBravo

RandomName2 wrote: »

Or rather it was just a method to call me 'sneaky' by paraphatic means. Which seems to happen all too often. "I will now call this person a xenophobe because (a) that will contain all of the unpleasant baggage that the word 'racist' bears and (b) I can't be pulled up for using the term 'racist'." Genius! It also relates to your typical ad-homenem modus opperandi that you seem to believe that belittling the poster will discredit his post.

If you feel that what I describe as xenophobic posting is not, in fact, xenophobic, you are free to take up one of my multiple offers to explain what other explanation than xenophobia underlies the attitude I so described.

But that's not your style. You'd rather try to shut down the debate with the clever meta-rhetorical device of pretending that there's no possibility that the post to which I was responding was in fact informed by xenophobia. Unfortunately, it's a transparent device, I called you on it, and you failed to respond.

Another thing is using absolutes - and what absolutes! If the democracy of America is criticised for not being perfect, the person criticising it must be claiming it to be fascistic. If they claim to not be calling it fascistic they must be contradicting themselves.

Once again, you have the option of actually explaining why the EU is undemocratic when it uses the same mechanisms for approving the appointment of executive members as does the United States and as our own country reserves the right to do (in part).

You also have the option of explaining why it is so critically, vitally important that members of an executive be elected, but not members of the judiciary.

Again: that would involve actually clearly expressing an opinion which you'd have to defend.

I'd ask you, what makes you feel that national determination is worthless? Because that clearly is your view, even if you have chosen to pepper the forum with cryptic little comments, questions and criticisms - and to retreat behind a shield of meta-argument and faux-ennui instead of stating your case clearly.

I don't feel that national determination is worthless; I merely feel that it's not paramount, and that there are good reasons to compromise the principle of nationalism for the pragmatic advantages that accrue from a supranational organisation.

You are not merely saying that the limitations of the democracy of the EU are tolerable - you are actively defending them. I suspect that that is because you believe that the current big idea for European hegemony is one worth defending. I'm sure that every big idea for European hegemony had its defenders. One wonders if the ultimate failures of all of them can be somewhat attributed to the blind doggedness and aggressivenes of such proponents?

I'm neither blindly dogged nor aggressive. I don't aggressively defend "hegemony", because I don't perceive such hegemony as existing outside the imaginations of the dogged defenders of nationalism.

I will, on the other hand, robustly attack what I consider to be flawed and intellectually dishonest arguments. If you feel your arguments are not flawed, and can stand up to scrutiny, feel free to express them plainly.

As for the limitations of EU democracy: I'm not a believer in untrammelled democracy. I don't believe you are either, or you wouldn't persistently avoid the question of why it's not a problem that we don't elect judges.

later12

oscarBravo wrote: »

I think it's a little rich - hell, I think it's utterly shameful - to complain about a lack of democracy in the EU when people in other countries are literally dying to get anything like the level of democracy that we, as citizens of the EU, enjoy.

I don't think this comment can just be allowed to pass. Just because we are in a far more advanced stage of democracy than those in less fortunate jurisdictions does not, under any circumstances, preclude us (morally or otherwise) from protesting or condemning our own democratic processes.

It's a bit like saying that we're wealthier than the Sudan or Ethiopia, thereofre what rights do we have to protest our faltering economic situation. Whatever the merits of the complaints about Lady Ashton's role in Europe, that would be quite a ridiculous suggestion, and so is yours.

oscarBravo

later10 wrote: »

I don't think this comment can just be allowed to pass. Just because we are in a far more advanced stage of democracy than those in less fortunate jurisdictions does not, under any circumstances, preclude us (morally or otherwise) from protesting or condemning our own democratic processes.

Agreed. What I'd like to see is something remotely approaching a sense of perspective in the argument. The EU is regularly decried as "fundamentally undemocratic" - it's not, and it's an insult to the people who live in fundamentally undemocratic countries to pretend that it is.

The EU isn't 100% democratic, in that there are some key roles that are not directly elected. I strongly believe that there's a compelling case for keeping such roles out of the realm of direct democratic election, but it's hard to even have that discussion in the face of the constant drone of "wah wah undemocratic wah wah" from people who seem to believe that the word "democracy" is a final argument in and of itself, and who put quite a lot of work into avoiding explaining why it's important.

I don't want Catherine Ashton's or Herman Van Rompuy's roles to be directly elected. If someone believes that they should, I'm patiently waiting for a compelling case to be made for it, along with an explanation of how to hold such an election in a meaningful way among the populations of a supra-national organisation.

later12

oscarBravo wrote: »

The EU isn't 100% democratic, in that there are some key roles that are not directly elected. I strongly believe that there's a compelling case for keeping such roles out of the realm of direct democratic election

That's perfectly acceptable. There are two sound arguments in favour of appointing unelected outsiders to certain roles by my count, although on balance it is a position that many of us would distance ourselves from, myself included.

Largely, this is down to an aversion to the principle of arbitrarily applying democratic rule in an environment where the democratic will might otherwise and easily be facilitated in popular elections.

The problem arises in describing the undemocratic nature of European governance. I get the feeling that, on this thread at least, nobody has really defined or agreed on what exactly the problem is in their eyes - accountability? awareness? mandate? Personally my gripe would be with accountability of elected and unelected European officials to European citizens directly. I think that they should be held more accountable by way of direct, and more direct popular elections that are independent of national legislators. It involves embarking on a new take on European citizenship, but that is not ab objective which would be insurmountable in itself.

View

oscarBravo wrote: »

The EU isn't 100% democratic, in that there are some key roles that are not directly elected.

What society is?

In the US, for instance, there are many roles at local level that are directly elected that are appointment only here. There, they can elect a "tough on crime" police chief if crime increases in their neighbourhoods; here, we can at best hope that our complaints might be filtered through the DoJ to the Gardai...

Are we, therefore, "undemocratic" because we can't elect our local police chief, school boards, city/county officials or even judges? Or are they "undemocratic" because the Senate is designed to prevent Congress catering to the more populous states at the expense of the less populous ones?

loldog

oscarBravo wrote: »

I don't want Catherine Ashton's or Herman Van Rompuy's roles to be directly elected.

I don't want Catherine Ashton's or Herman Van Rompuy's roles to EXIST. Or Barroso's either, or the Commission, or any other individual who can't be extracted from office directly by a section of the public. :mad:

She's now handling the intervention of some EU member states in the Libyan Civil War and said she's talking to NATO about it.

My problems is we haven't had an EU wide consultation with the people by way of referendum on what kind of supranational body the EU is supposed to be. we've had a steady, insidious *power creep* to the point now where we have unelected leaders like Barroso, von Rompuy and Ashton getting involved with military blocs like NATO to bring about regime change to remove an unelected leader in North Africa.

We need an EU Constitution, approved by a majority in all member states if the EU is to have such powers. Nobody took Stalin very seriously because he did all the boring behind-the-scenes administrative work nobody else wanted to do. Take a warning from history.

No one should have political power and influence unless they've earned it at the ballot box.

.

oscarBravo

loldog wrote: »

I don't want Catherine Ashton's or Herman Van Rompuy's roles to EXIST. Or Barroso's either, or the Commission, or any other individual who can't be extracted from office directly by a section of the public. :mad:

So you'll be campaigning for a constitutional change to prevent non-members of the Dáil from holding ministerial office in Ireland then? And what are your feelings about the entire US cabinet being unelected?

She's now handling the intervention of some EU member states in the Libyan Civil War and said she's talking to NATO about it.

And she can't say or do a thing without the agreement of all the member states.

My problems is we haven't had an EU wide consultation with the people by way of referendum on what kind of supranational body the EU is supposed to be.

A number of EU member states can't have referenda on the subject. What do you think we should do about them? Force them to change their constitutions so they can have a binding referendum?

we've had a steady, insidious *power creep* to the point now where we have unelected leaders like Barroso, von Rompuy and Ashton getting involved with military blocs like NATO to bring about regime change to remove an unelected leader in North Africa.

Exactly what role have Ashton and Van Rompuy played in the UN-sanctioned action in Libya? Put another way, how different would things be if they weren't involved?

We need an EU Constitution, approved by a majority in all member states if the EU is to have such powers.

Such powers as what, exactly?

Nobody took Stalin very seriously because he did all the boring behind-the-scenes administrative work nobody else wanted to do. Take a warning from history.

You're comparing Ashton and Van Rompuy to Stalin? Shades of Godwin...

No one should have political power and influence unless they've earned it at the ballot box.

Do you believe that the USA is an undemocratic country? Do you believe that senior judicial (as opposed to political) figures should be elected?

Finally, how would an election for the post of EU President work? Details, please.

edwinkane

Scofflaw wrote: »

Have you ever considered why it might not be a good idea to elect the Commission?

cordially,
Scofflaw

On balance, elections focus the mind and are better than "appointing" individuals to office, be it high or less high office.

To have appointed someone like Baroness Ashton, a hitherto virtually unknown UK minor politician, is a good case in point. In the UK,there were eyebrows raised when she was appointed, it being considered that she was not of sufficient calibre and did not have sufficient experience, to do the role in Europe.

Not being elected insulates the Commission from reality, as they swish about in chauffeured limousines with very generous expense accounts and flunkeys, and having little necessity to concern themselves because they have no need to ask the people on whose behalf they are working for their verdict. Importantly, there is no consequence for failure. In Ireland, there has just been a realisation that such insulating of politicians has been very damaging, as they lose touch with more and more of what pass for realities for the rest of us.

It was this insulation which led the EU down the path of the Euro, and who thought, and probably still do think, that political will can trump the realities of the market. This looks like it is going to make the EU a nominee for the category of most expensive mistake in the history of the world, as we now casually talk of tens of billions as if it were chump change, and as the german government is throwing hundreds of billions to try to cover up the cracks and avoid the fundamental flaws in the Euro, and which will almost certainly lead to its demise.

Give me elected politicians over appointed ones any time.

Scofflaw

edwinkane wrote: »

On balance, elections focus the mind and are better than "appointing" individuals to office, be it high or less high office.

To have appointed someone like Baroness Ashton, a hitherto virtually unknown UK minor politician, is a good case in point. In the UK,there were eyebrows raised when she was appointed, it being considered that she was not of sufficient calibre and did not have sufficient experience, to do the role in Europe.

Not being elected insulates the Commission from reality, as they swish about in chauffeured limousines with very generous expense accounts and flunkeys, and having little necessity to concern themselves because they have no need to ask the people on whose behalf they are working for their verdict. Importantly, there is no consequence for failure. In Ireland, there has just been a realisation that such insulating of politicians has been very damaging, as they lose touch with more and more of what pass for realities for the rest of us.

It was this insulation which led the EU down the path of the Euro, and who thought, and probably still do think, that political will can trump the realities of the market. This looks like it is going to make the EU a nominee for the category of most expensive mistake in the history of the world, as we now casually talk of tens of billions as if it were chump change, and as the german government is throwing hundreds of billions to try to cover up the cracks and avoid the fundamental flaws in the Euro, and which will almost certainly lead to its demise.

Give me elected politicians over appointed ones any time.

A nice rousing piece of rhetoric, which rather suffers from ignoring the fact that the elected politicians were the ones that created the euro - and, rather more importantly, prevented it having any plan B, because elected politicians are invariably unwilling to sacrifice popularity for hard decisions about something that hasn't happened yet.

cordially,
Scofflaw

edwinkane

Scofflaw wrote: »

A nice rousing piece of rhetoric, which rather suffers from ignoring the fact that the elected politicians were the ones that created the euro - and, rather more importantly, prevented it having any plan B, because elected politicians are invariably unwilling to sacrifice popularity for hard decisions about something that hasn't happened yet.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I'm not sure who said that democracy is the worst form of government, until you compare it to the alternatives.

Certainly, democracy is far from perfect, and I assume you are not making an argument that all politicians should be appointed rather than elected.

Without doubt, I'd prefer to see politicans elected, rather than appointed. Hence we get Baroness Ashton, a poor candidate, the result of fudge and compromise.

I assume Bertie Ahern also appointed politicians to the Commission in his time, and I would have no faith is either his judgement, or his probity, in so doing. I'm have more faith in the judgement of an electorate electing a politician, rather than being appointed by Bertie Ahern, or Brian Cowan , or Enda Kenny, or Tony Blair etc etc, for that matter.

oscarBravo

edwinkane wrote: »

I assume Bertie Ahern also appointed politicians to the Commission in his time, and I would have no faith is either his judgement, or his probity, in so doing. I'm have more faith in the judgement of an electorate electing a politician...

...such as the electorate that gave us Bertie Ahern? Stellar judgement, to be sure.

Scofflaw

edwinkane wrote: »

I'm not sure who said that democracy is the worst form of government, until you compare it to the alternatives.

Certainly, democracy is far from perfect, and I assume you are not making an argument that all politicians should be appointed rather than elected.

Without doubt, I'd prefer to see politicans elected, rather than appointed. Hence we get Baroness Ashton, a poor candidate, the result of fudge and compromise.

I assume Bertie Ahern also appointed politicians to the Commission in his time, and I would have no faith is either his judgement, or his probity, in so doing. I'm have more faith in the judgement of an electorate electing a politician, rather than being appointed by Bertie Ahern, or Brian Cowan , or Enda Kenny, or Tony Blair etc etc, for that matter.

All of whom were elected...doesn't that rather weaken the case? And I can't help but notice that you've had to ignore the fact that it was elected politicians who gave us the euro without a plan B.

No, I don't think everyone should be appointed, but I don't think everyone should be elected either. The case against electing Commissioners, and indeed Baroness Ashton, is fairly straightforward, with an additional argument in the case of her role.

Essentially, the problem is that Commissioners are supposed to act only in the interests of Europe. That was, of course, something that was greeted with scepticism, which is why the big powers originally kept two Commissioners - but it has proven to be the case to the extent that the Lisbon Treaty implemented (or attempted to implement) the reasonable step
of reducing the College of Commissioners to less than one per Member State.

Would that be possible with elected Commissioners? I don't think so at all. For a start, what electorate would elect a Commissioner?

Nationally elected Commissioners would immediately destroy the neutrality of the Commission, and reprise all the national posturing and squabbling that characterises the Council, and which is exactly what prevents Europe from acting in a unified way unless the Franco-German axis is working - whereupon everyone else feels they're being bullied.

So a Europe-wide election? Not even vaguely rational - the large weights of the larger nations would ensure that Germany could elect 20 Commissioners to each of ours - unless we rejigged the votes. And who is really going to vote for anyone but their own nationals? Who is even going to know anyone but their own nationals? The principle of 'one citizen, one vote' is obviously not going to hold, so why exactly would we pretend this was a democratic election in a European demos?

And even if we ignore all that and push ahead on the basis that voting someone into office is all there is to democracy, we're left with the problem that in order to be elected over other candidates, each of our elected Commissioners will have to have made promises to the electorate - which means abandoning any thought that the Commission might act only when it sees an advantage to all of Europe in doing so.

In the case of Ashton, all of the above applies, plus the fact that Ashton's job isn't to make policy, but to carry out the policy of the European Council. She's a senior diplomat, not a Minister, and I don't believe anyone has ever called for the election of diplomats.

No, unless one is stuck on the notion that voting = democracy full stop, there isn't any case for electing Commissioners.

cordially,
Scofflaw

edwinkane

I quite agree there are lots of problems with democracy. I can't believe I am here arguing that democracy is a better way of choosing politicians rather than appointing politicians!

I remember when Tony Blair was elected after years of Tory government, there was a palpable sense of relief right across the whole of the UK that the (by then) dreaded Tories were gone, evicted by the electors. Ditto in Ireland recently when the FF party found out there are consequences for their rotten way of governing. In both cases, the satisfaction at booting out politicians acted as a safety valve for society. That is a very important feature for democracy and one which is often minimised, but is nonetheless a vital piece in the jigsaw to help prevent anarchy and civil unrest.

For elected politicians, there are usually, eventually, consequences for their actions.

Whether or not commissioners should be elected or appointed is a matter of principle. It may well be that there are practical and technical problems, and you argue that case very well.

The democratic deficit is often invoked when the EU is discussed, the view being held right across Europe that the EU is remote and shrouded in mystery. The very process of electing the commissioners would go some way to throwing open the doors and involving us Europeans more in the EU, give us more of an interest in what happens, and how it happens.

Currently, hardly anyone in Europe knows even the names of more than a couple of commissioners, let alone what portfolios they have or what work they do. The commissioners don't explain to the people on whose behalf they are supposed to be working what they do, because they are not elected.

I fully agree that the notion "voting = democracy" is flawed, and feel we should all be more involved than merely voting. But its better to have the vote than not to have it and I'd go further and say "appointing politicians = non democracy"

oscarBravo

edwinkane wrote: »

Whether or not commissioners should be elected or appointed is a matter of principle. It may well be that there are practical and technical problems, and you argue that case very well.

Um. Am I misunderstanding, or did you just accept that there are practical and technical reasons not to elect the Commission, but that technical and practical reasons should be subordinate to a principle? And, at that, a principle that's a matter of opinion at best?

The commissioners don't explain to the people on whose behalf they are supposed to be working what they do, because they are not elected.

Two problems with that assertion: first, the commissioners don't work on behalf of the people, they work on behalf of the Union. Second, have you ever actually tried asking the commissioners what they do? The Commission tends to be pretty open about its work.

later12

Scofflaw wrote: »

All of whom were elected...doesn't that rather weaken the case? And I can't help but notice that you've had to ignore the fact that it was elected politicians who gave us the euro without a plan B.

Actually they gave us a general principle (The Euro) without Plan A.

That elected politicians have failed their electorates everywhere from Achill Island to Ankara is not being questioned here; the argument is the principle of whether, and how, democracy ought to be applied to the European structures.
You're either in favour of more direct appointments or not, pointing out previous failures of democratically elected politicians like that of Bertie Ahern as another poster has done, as if that somehow detracts from the principle of directly elected government, is completely asinine. Neither can one reasonably suggest that individual indirectly appointed officials' respective and professional failures are a case against indirect rule. It just doesn't come into it so can people please stop banging on about it?

The main argument, after all, against electing a Commission is that the nature and role of the Commission - certainly the reason why it was given some executive function - is to prevent disproportionate transnational political outcomes or indeed political intereference to begin with, be that from the European Parliament or the European public.

That is a worthy effort. But, in an effort to de-politicise the offices of the Commisioners, the EU creates, by default, a disconnect from the public and from the national political institutions. It corrodes the accountability of the EU institutions. The EU, and particularly the smaller states of that union, are quite simply afraid of voters. You can dress this up as protecting the smaller nations or a partnership of equals, but the fact remains that legislation can and does arise from the (non-elected) Commission and trickle its way down through the council and the EP, and, by QMV, the ultimately successful European law may supercede the role of national law of a jurisdiction wholeheartedly opposed to any such particular EU law.

Do you call that democracy?

Would that be possible with elected Commissioners? I don't think so at all. For a start, what electorate would elect a Commissioner?

It may not be necessary to elect them, we should look at the possibility of taking away their ability to initiate legislation and other executive functions. However, I'm not totally convinced that nationally elected commisioners would be a disaster. For example, there is already a set number of commisoners per state; why not at least give the public to choose the make-up inside of that.

And as for the argument that the commission should not be worried about the popular vote in the execution of their functions of office, why the hell shouldn't they be? If a measure is something that would not be welcome amongst voters, then that absolutely should be carefully considered and re-examined - that is a basic democratic principle - the rule of the people. Not the rule of the people until such point as some delegated, unelected officials arbitrarily decide that the people are either too stupid or too selfish to rule themselves.
This is what I mean when I say that I am totally opposed to this arbitrary application of direct democratic rule in situations where the popular vote might be easily accomodated; an application, it seems, that Europe is willing to apply only when it suits itself and not its people.

And who is really going to vote for anyone but their own nationals?

Perhaps if Europeans felt a more direct connect to the ruling institutions of the Union, perhaops through a mixed member proportional system, they might treat the elections as something more than second-order elections which are not taken seriously and are generally used to punish or to pet a national government.

There are of course other options open to us, and it may well be that the best outcome might be the total abolition of the Commision as it exists and and actually hiring real life diplomats who report to European policy committees, or European parliaments stationed in their own countries such as what happens in the Danish legislature with great positive effect. In this time of electronic voting and advanced communications, we may even ought to rethink the very basis of the European parliament if a more streamlined and more efficient and more accountable means of legislating on Europe through the national parliaments might be arranged.

In the case of Ashton, all of the above applies, plus the fact that Ashton's job isn't to make policy, but to carry out the policy of the European Council. She's a senior diplomat, not a Minister, and I don't believe anyone has ever called for the election of diplomats.

This is just factually incorrect. Ashton is, legally, a Commisioner with the technical ability to play her part in initiating, revising and repealing European legislation in the Commission with her colleagues. I say technical because I am unaware whether or not she chooses to exercise her executive rights, but she certainly does have such a role and she certainly is 'a minister' and as a Vice president of that Commsion, it would be rather unthinkable that she would not contribute in that way.

oscarBravo

later10 wrote: »

Actually they gave us a general principle (The Euro) without Plan A.

The fact that the Euro was implemented makes that a pretty bizarre assertion.

That elected politicians have failed their electorates everywhere from Achill Island to Ankara is not being questioned here; the argument is the principle of whether, and how, democracy ought to be applied to the European structures.
You're either in favour of more direct appointments or not, pointing out previous failures of democratically elected politicians like that of Bertie Ahern as another poster has done, as if that somehow detracts from the principle of directly elected government, is completely asinine. Neither can one reasonably suggest that individual indirectly appointed officials' respective and professional failures are a case against indirect rule. It just doesn't come into it so can people please stop banging on about it?

What? It's being argued that every politician everywhere (except, apparently, the US) must be elected because direct election intrinsically and inevitably produces better outcomes through accountability. But you're trying to rule out the catastrophic failures of elected politicians as a counter-argument? How does that work?

The main argument, after all, against electing a Commission is that the nature and role of the Commission - certainly the reason why it was given some executive function - is to prevent disproportionate transnational political outcomes or indeed political intereference to begin with, be that from the European Parliament or the European public.

That is a worthy effort. But, in an effort to de-politicise the offices of the Commisioners, the EU creates, by default, a disconnect from the public and from the national political institutions.

Yes. Exactly. That's precisely the point. The EU is an organisation of member states; it's not a country. If you want the EU to be a single country, make a case for that, but otherwise please stop arguing that the EU should be in every way identical to a country (apart, for some reason, from the United States).

It corrodes the accountability of the EU institutions.

How, precisely, does the Commission corrode the accountability of the Parliament or the Council?

The EU, and particularly the smaller states of that union, are quite simply afraid of voters.

That would be why the EU member states, and particularly the smaller ones, don't elect their own governments? Oh wait...

You can dress this up as protecting the smaller nations or a partnership of equals, but the fact remains that legislation can and does arise from the (non-elected) Commission and trickle its way down through the council and the EP, and, by QMV, the ultimately successful European law may supercede the role of national law of a jurisdiction wholeheartedly opposed to any such particular EU law.

Do you call that democracy?

Who's calling it democracy? It's a supra-national organisation with a great deal of democratic structure, and some aspects that are, of necessity, less democratic. You're arguing that a supra-national organisation must be completely democratic or shouldn't exist, although I don't see you making that case for (say) the UN. Or, for that matter, for the USA.

It may not be necessary to elect them, we should look at the possibility of taking away their ability to initiate legislation and other executive functions. However, I'm not totally convinced that nationally elected commisioners would be a disaster. For example, there is already a set number of commisoners per state; why not at least give the public to choose the make-up inside of that.

Because then they'd be accountable to the electorate of their own member state, rather than to the Union as a whole. We already have our MEPs and our delegates to the council accountable to us as individual electorates. What's wrong with having a handful of people who are required to take a broader view?

And as for the argument that the commission should not be worried about the popular vote in the execution of their functions of office, why the hell shouldn't they be? If a measure is something that would not be welcome amongst voters, then that absolutely should be carefully considered and re-examined - that is a basic democratic principle - the rule of the people. Not the rule of the people until such point as some delegated, unelected officials arbitrarily decide that the people are either too stupid or too selfish to rule themselves.

Doubtless you'll make the same case for the election of Supreme Court justices, then? Or are you going to fall back on the lazy hand-waving argument that "we're not talking about judges". If we're not talking about judges, why are we talking about commissioners?

Perhaps if Europeans felt a more direct connect to the ruling institutions of the Union, perhaops through a mixed member proportional system, they might treat the elections as something more than second-order elections which are not taken seriously and are generally used to punish or to pet a national government.

Wow, what a compelling argument for Europe-wide elections: the electorate might just possibly take them seriously. Maybe. Hopefully.

There are of course other options open to us, and it may well be that the best outcome might be the total abolition of the Commision as it exists and and actually hiring real life diplomats who report to European policy committees...

Thus far, the only reason I've seen advanced for the abolition of the Commission is that it doesn't meet some arbitrary and inconsistent standard of "democracy" - not that the Commission has been actively harmful to Europe, or to any of its member states, or to any of the people of its member states. At best, the argument seems to be that the Commission might propose legislation that might get approved by the (democratically elected) Council and the (democratically elected) Parliament, and that this legislation might not completely suit the wishes of a member state.

Which is basically an argument to state that, unless every member state gets its way on every issue all the time, there shouldn't be a Union. Which is just common or garden nationalism/Euroskepticism wrapped up in a lot more words.

There are things that could be done to make the EU work better. Electing Máire Geoghan-Quinn or Catherine Ashton isn't one of them.

...or European parliaments stationed in their own countries such as what happens in the Danish legislature with great positive effect.

I have no idea what this even means.

In this time of electronic voting and advanced communications, we may even ought to rethink the very basis of the European parliament if a more streamlined and more efficient and more accountable means of legislating on Europe through the national parliaments might be arranged.

Oh dear sweet jebus, you'll have people texting premium rate numbers to vote on European issues next. :rolleyes: