E.U. Democratic Deficit ?

katy39

I have often heard of people talking about the EU having a Democratic deficit especially by Brexiteers, how can this be so when they have a parliament ?

tomwaterford

For 1 ireland is afaik the only country to have regular referendums on eu treaties


IMO they should be held for all states....even if they are just a formality and it gives euro skeptic parties a platform to voice opionions and get their voice heard better/even begin to have a positive impact on the eu

amcalester

tomwaterford wrote: »

For 1 ireland is afaik the only country to have regular referendums on eu treaties


IMO they should be held for all states....even if they are just a formality and it gives euro skeptic parties a platform to voice opionions and get their voice heard better/even begin to have a positive impact on the eu

My understanding is that Ireland has to have a referendum on an EU Treaty due to our constitution, but there is nothing stopping other countries from holding similar referenda.

They are just not constitutionally bound to do so.

tomwaterford

amcalester wrote: »

My understanding is that Ireland has to have a referendum on an EU Treaty due to our constitution, but there is nothing stopping other countries from holding similar referenda.

They are just not constitutionally bound to do so.

I think you are correct

But you can understand where there's a sense of disconnect from the electorate...


.tbh I would struggle to even name the munster MEP (s??) No mind all of Ireland's

oscarBravo

katy39 wrote: »

I have often heard of people talking about the EU having a Democratic deficit especially by Brexiteers, how can this be so when they have a parliament ?

It's a side effect of the "everyone should have a vote on absolutely everything" mentality.

There are three governing bodies in the EU: the Council, the Commission, and the Parliament. The Parliament is directly elected by the population of the Union. The Council consists of the elected heads of state or government of the member states. The Commission consists of people appointed by the elected governments of the member states.

The usual target of the "democratic deficit" claim is the Commission, usually with the argument that the Commissioners should be directly elected - apparently only having two of the bodies consisting of elected representatives isn't enough.

There are good reasons for the Commissioners not to be elected, chief among them the fact that their job is to represent the interests of the Union as a whole, rather than the interests of the member states that appointed them. If you're someone for whom there is no metric for "good" other than "elected" - which is pretty funny, considering how much people complain about politicians - and if having two thirds of the Union's institutions consist of elected representatives, then sure: by those unrealistic lights the EU has a "democratic deficit".

Basically, the people who complain about democratic deficits are the people who either want a full-blown federal US of E, or the people who don't want an EU.

johnp001

amcalester wrote: »

My understanding is that Ireland has to have a referendum on an EU Treaty due to our constitution, but there is nothing stopping other countries from holding similar referenda.

They are just not constitutionally bound to do so.

Lots of other countries have had referenda on EU treaties.
Some are listed here

recedite

The EU parliament is not the major decision maker, the Council of Ministers is.
On the face of it, that body seems democratic, because it is made up of the PMs or equivalent of each country.
But in practice, watch how it works. German chancellor gets an idea, then takes it to the French President. The French insist on some minor change, just to show they have some power, then the proposal goes to Italy for another bilateral meeting. The Italians demand some extra money for whatever, and then at that stage its a done deal. The Council of Ministers is called to a meeting, but the likes of Enda Kenny and other minnows are only there to rubber stamp what has already been decided.
Hence the democratic deficit.

Ditto with the ECB in Frankfurt. Decisions involving inflation and interest rates are normally based on what is good for Germany.

Merkel is delighted with the new guy on the block, Macron.

A source close to the former banker said the exchange was "very warm" with the two pro-EU politicians having previously agreed on a future path for Europe which will see more power centralised in Brussels.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/801641/Emmanuel-Macron-French-election-president-first-call-Angela-Merkel

oscarBravo

recedite wrote: »

But in practice, watch how it works. German chancellor gets an idea, then takes it to the French President. The French insist on some minor change, just to show they have some power, then the proposal goes to Italy for another bilateral meeting. The Italians demand some extra money for whatever, and then at that stage its a done deal. The Council of Ministers is called to a meeting, but the likes of Enda Kenny and other minnows are only there to rubber stamp what has already been decided.
Hence the democratic deficit.

That's a fine bit of caricature. Do you write for the Mail in your spare time?

oppenheimer1

recedite wrote: »

The EU parliament is not the major decision maker, the Council of Ministers is.
On the face of it, that body seems democratic, because it is made up of the PMs or equivalent of each country.
But in practice, watch how it works. German chancellor gets an idea, then takes it to the French President. The French insist on some minor change, just to show they have some power, then the proposal goes to Italy for another bilateral meeting. The Italians demand some extra money for whatever, and then at that stage its a done deal. The Council of Ministers is called to a meeting, but the likes of Enda Kenny and other minnows are only there to rubber stamp what has already been decided.
Hence the democratic deficit.

Ditto with the ECB in Frankfurt. Decisions involving inflation and interest rates are normally based on what is good for Germany.

Merkel is delighted with the new guy on the block, Macron.http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/801641/Emmanuel-Macron-French-election-president-first-call-Angela-Merkel

Well if it's in the express....

recedite

oscarBravo wrote: »

That's a fine bit of caricature. Do you write for the Mail in your spare time?

Keep an eye out for the next Franco-German bilateral. Then watch as Merkel heads off to Italy a few days later.

Jim2007

tomwaterford wrote: »

For 1 ireland is afaik the only country to have regular referendums on eu treaties

Denmark and France have similar requirements, but it is not as strict as Ireland.

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

The EU parliament is not the major decision maker, the Council of Ministers is.
On the face of it, that body seems democratic, because it is made up of the PMs or equivalent of each country.
But in practice, watch how it works. German chancellor gets an idea, then takes it to the French President. The French insist on some minor change, just to show they have some power, then the proposal goes to Italy for another bilateral meeting. The Italians demand some extra money for whatever, and then at that stage its a done deal. The Council of Ministers is called to a meeting, but the likes of Enda Kenny and other minnows are only there to rubber stamp what has already been decided . . .

And this differs from how other functioning democratic institutions work how, exactly?

AnGaelach

oscarBravo wrote: »

It's a side effect of the "everyone should have a vote on absolutely everything" mentality.

There are three governing bodies in the EU: the Council, the Commission, and the Parliament. The Parliament is directly elected by the population of the Union. The Council consists of the elected heads of state or government of the member states. The Commission consists of people appointed by the elected governments of the member states.

The usual target of the "democratic deficit" claim is the Commission, usually with the argument that the Commissioners should be directly elected - apparently only having two of the bodies consisting of elected representatives isn't enough.

There are good reasons for the Commissioners not to be elected, chief among them the fact that their job is to represent the interests of the Union as a whole, rather than the interests of the member states that appointed them. If you're someone for whom there is no metric for "good" other than "elected" - which is pretty funny, considering how much people complain about politicians - and if having two thirds of the Union's institutions consist of elected representatives, then sure: by those unrealistic lights the EU has a "democratic deficit".

Basically, the people who complain about democratic deficits are the people who either want a full-blown federal US of E, or the people who don't want an EU.

Well, the Parliament has no real power to do anything. It only recently got the power to appoint the Commission (Jean Claude Juncker being the first Spitzenkandidat). It can't legislate, nor can it really refuse to sign a law - it can merely offer its opinion on a piece of legislation that the Commission writes.

I don't believe the Parliament to be something truly worthwhile pursuing anyway. If each Member is truly equal, it should have equal say at the negotiating table (as it does in the Council, not perfectly but definitely moreso than the Parliament). The Parliament is more "democratic" but that simply means the majority consists of the largest countries plus whatever tag-alongs they need to reach 50%. It entrenches power with simple size.

If you also want to contend with the democratic deficit, you need to address the issue of Nice 1/2 and Lisbon 1/2 (and the ESM Treaty which they would have run again if we refused). Asking a country to vote on something and ignoring its vote is hardly democratic.

There's also the highly secretive nature of TTIP and the way it was carried out. Trilogues are another issue that should be dealt with - there's an enormous number of redactions in each trilogue.

I feel that we should do away with the Parliament entirely, and leave the power in the hands of National Governments. Not only is the Parliament a distraction from the real powerbrokers and a nuisance, it's an enormous waste of money. You had people like Farage or Schulz (both gone, thankfully) doing nothing but acting as a mouthpiece whilst suckling their income from the taxpayer.

oscarBravo

AnGaelach wrote: »

I don't believe the Parliament to be something truly worthwhile pursuing anyway. If each Member is truly equal, it should have equal say at the negotiating table (as it does in the Council, not perfectly but definitely moreso than the Parliament). The Parliament is more "democratic" but that simply means the majority consists of the largest countries plus whatever tag-alongs they need to reach 50%. It entrenches power with simple size.

I have to admit: the idea that the directly-elected institution is the least democratic one is a new one on me.

If you also want to contend with the democratic deficit, you need to address the issue of Nice 1/2 and Lisbon 1/2 (and the ESM Treaty which they would have run again if we refused). Asking a country to vote on something and ignoring its vote is hardly democratic.

Go on, throw in some straight banana regulations while you're at it.

Firstly, we weren't asked (by the EU) to vote on Nice or Lisbon. It's the job of the Oireachtas to ratify treaties, but for reasons that have more to do with a sense of entitlement than anything else, the government feels it politically necessary to amend the Constitution before ratifying EU treaties. The EU doesn't care whether or not we hold a referendum.

Secondly, the outcome of a referendum has never been ignored. In the case of the Nice 1 and Lisbon 1 votes, the referendum asked whether the Constitution should be amended; after the "no" results, the Constitution wasn't amended. The government, still wanting to ratify the treaties that it had negotiated on behalf of the people, got some stupid "no, seriously: this treaty won't force you to have an abortion" protocols tacked on to those treaties, and asked again for permission to amend the Constitution.

The narrative of "the nasty EU forced us to re-run a referendum because it didn't like the result" plays well to people who don't know or care how the EU works, but it has the unfortunate flaw of being completely and utterly fabricated. And yes: I get that some people think the truth is whatever it suits them to believe, but that's not true either.

Jim2007

AnGaelach wrote: »

If you also want to contend with the democratic deficit, you need to address the issue of Nice 1/2 and Lisbon 1/2 (and the ESM Treaty which they would have run again if we refused). Asking a country to vote on something and ignoring its vote is hardly democratic.

You really need to get your head around how things actually work!!! Do you understand the concept of negotiations??? Negotiations involves offers and counter offers etc... There is no obligation on the parties to just consider one offer, reject it and leave it at that.

Now you may not like it, but you are going to have to deal with it. Because with 27 states now involved in the negotiations, 38 state and regional parliaments involved the ratification and between one and three state referenda required, you can be fairly sure that multiple referenda will become a feature of the democratic process.

On each of the two occasions that Ireland rejected the first offer, as second was made and the electorate is fully entitled to accept or reject the offers as they please.

If you can show line for line that the treaty documents are 100% the same in each case, you'd have a point other wise it is just hot air.

AnGaelach

oscarBravo wrote: »

I have to admit: the idea that the directly-elected institution is the least democratic one is a new one on me. Go on, throw in some straight banana regulations while you're at it.

You've argued about tyranny of the majority before yourself iirc.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Firstly, we weren't asked (by the EU) to vote on Nice or Lisbon. It's the job of the Oireachtas to ratify treaties, but for reasons that have more to do with a sense of entitlement than anything else, the government feels it politically necessary to amend the Constitution before ratifying EU treaties. The EU doesn't care whether or not we hold a referendum.

Well, you're entirely wrong on that front. We need to have a referendum on these issues because Bunreacht na hÉireann explicitly states that the people of Ireland are sovereign - which is a break from most other countries. Germany and Britain, for instance, have a sovereign parliament. We do not. Any attempt to shift sovereignty away from the people of Ireland requires their explicit approval.

It's not a "sense of entitlement", it's a Constitutional requirement. The only way an international treaty can have domestic effect is if it isn't repugnant to the Constitution - which requires a transfer of sovereignty.

If you can find a commentator on Constitutional law to back up your claim that the Lisbon/Nice referenda were run out of a "sense of entitlement" I'd be surprised.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Secondly, the outcome of a referendum has never been ignored. In the case of the Nice 1 and Lisbon 1 votes, the referendum asked whether the Constitution should be amended; after the "no" results, the Constitution wasn't amended. The government, still wanting to ratify the treaties that it had negotiated on behalf of the people, got some stupid "no, seriously: this treaty won't force you to have an abortion" protocols tacked on to those treaties, and asked again for permission to amend the Constitution.

The narrative of "the nasty EU forced us to re-run a referendum because it didn't like the result" plays well to people who don't know or care how the EU works, but it has the unfortunate flaw of being completely and utterly fabricated. And yes: I get that some people think the truth is whatever it suits them to believe, but that's not true either.

That's all very well and good, but it's not entirely true either. A Treaty must be approved unanimously by the Member States in order to come into force. They ran a referendum in France on the European Constitution (which was essentially proto-Lisbon), the referendum was defeated so it was instead run through the French parliament rather than consulting the people.

The Government hasn't a pair of bollocks about it, but saying that the EU wasn't putting pressure on the Government to re-run it is a tremendously stupid opinion to hold.

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

And this differs from how other functioning democratic institutions work how, exactly?

In this arrangement, which is more aristocracy than democracy, the German and French political elite are the aristocrats of Europe.

Jim2007

AnGaelach wrote: »

The Government hasn't a pair of bollocks about it, but saying that the EU wasn't putting pressure on the Government to re-run it is a tremendously stupid opinion to hold.

Still waiting on you to prove that the treaty proposals were the same in each case...... When you do, we can get back to this.

oscarBravo

AnGaelach wrote: »

You've argued about tyranny of the majority before yourself iirc.

Sure, but then I'm a skeptic about democracy in general. I think democracy is like any powerful force: best applied very judiciously. You'll mostly find me arguing against the simplistic idea that "more democratic" is always a synonym for "better".

Well, you're entirely wrong on that front. We need to have a referendum on these issues because Bunreacht na hÉireann explicitly states that the people of Ireland are sovereign - which is a break from most other countries. Germany and Britain, for instance, have a sovereign parliament. We do not. Any attempt to shift sovereignty away from the people of Ireland requires their explicit approval.

True, but only part of the story. Yes, we need to amend the constitution if we're shifting sovereignty - but no, not every treaty the government negotiates is a shift in sovereignty.

While you have your copy of the Constitution open, have a gander at Article 29, sections 4-6. Negotiating and ratifying treaties is the job of the Oireachtas.

While you're there, take a moment to admire the utter shambles that 29.4 has become as a result of shoehorning treaty ratifications into the Constitution, where they don't belong.

It's not a "sense of entitlement", it's a Constitutional requirement. The only way an international treaty can have domestic effect is if it isn't repugnant to the Constitution - which requires a transfer of sovereignty.

Not true. Can you point to the constitutional amendment that allowed us to ratify the Ottawa Treaty?

If you can find a commentator on Constitutional law to back up your claim that the Lisbon/Nice referenda were run out of a "sense of entitlement" I'd be surprised.

http://www.iiea.com/documents/a-road-less-travelled---reflections-on-the-supreme-court-rulings-in-crotty-coughlan-and-mckenna-no2 - well worth a read.

They ran a referendum in France on the European Constitution (which was essentially proto-Lisbon), the referendum was defeated so it was instead run through the French parliament rather than consulting the people.

Firstly, the Lisbon Treaty and the European Constitution were different documents. There's no "instead" about it. France made a decision to hold a referendum on one, and not on the other.

The Government hasn't a pair of bollocks about it, but saying that the EU wasn't putting pressure on the Government to re-run it is a tremendously stupid opinion to hold.

I don't recall anyone expressing that opinion, but sure: there was pressure on the Irish government to ratify the treaty it had helped to negotiate.

If you think the EU should have just abandoned a treaty which all its member state governments (including Ireland's) had agreed it needed, just because the Irish electorate wanted assurances about nonsense that wasn't even in the treaty, well, there's no shortage of stupid opinions out there.

murphaph

recedite wrote: »

Keep an eye out for the next Franco-German bilateral. Then watch as Merkel heads off to Italy a few days later.

Even with all 3 on board it wouldn't be a qualified majority if the rest of the EU voted against. You're talking nonsense.

Germany is exceptionally benign given how much it contributes financially to the EU.

recedite

murphaph wrote: »

Even with all 3 on board it wouldn't be a qualified majority if the rest of the EU voted against. You're talking nonsense.

Of course 3 is not a majority. What I am saying is the proposal is generally then presented to the other minnows as a fait accompli and normally they simply cow-tow to the aristocrats, in the hope that they will subsequently be treated in a benign way.

The only time it hasn't worked was when Merkel and Hollande developed a mandatory migrant policy in 2016, but were quite surprised at the level of opposition from the countries in the east of the EU. A new power bloc, The Visegrad Group, was formed, which seems to have successfully defeated the measures.

murphaph

recedite wrote: »

Of course 3 is not a majority. What I am saying is the proposal is generally then presented to the other minnows as a fait accompli and normally they simply cow-tow to the aristocrats, in the hope that they will subsequently be treated in a benign way.

The only time it hasn't worked was when Merkel and Hollande developed a mandatory migrant policy in 2016, but were quite surprised at the level of opposition from the countries in the east of the EU. A new power bloc, The Visegrad Group, was formed, which seems to have successfully defeated the measures.

So there is a counterweight to the "evil" Franco-German axis that can prevent stuff it's opposed to from being forced upon them. What's your point again?

This "minnows" thing is another red herring. The country with the most voting rights per capita in the union? Malta. The country with the least voting rights per capita? Germany.

It's right and proper that Germany can outvote Malta but per capita the smaller nations have more voting weight than the big ones.

View

katy39 wrote: »

I have often heard of people talking about the EU having a Democratic deficit especially by Brexiteers, how can this be so when they have a parliament ?

It is just a stick for them to beat the EU with as you can be absolutely certain that had the other nations in the EU said at any time "Right, we'll have a democratic vote on a mandatory law that all member states must immediately/asap adopt the Euro and accede to Schengen" that they would have been screaming their heads off about the mere suggestion. And, no they wouldn't have cared if the democratic vote was a parliamentary (EP + CoM) one or even a single EU wide referendum since they'd reject both out of hand.

As for the phrase itself, it actually was originally a Federalist criticism made back in the early/mid 70s about the then European Communities. In reponse to it, the member states agreed on the initial direct European Parliamentary elections in 79. That in turn has led to the subsequent slow but considerable upgrading of the powers of the EP which now has co-equal status with the Council of Ministers in virtually all legislative matters.

That though won't ever satisfy people who believe solely in the nation state (and never mind that, in the case of Brexiters, very many of them argue against Scottish independence using the same arguments that they reject in the case of the UK's EU membership).

View

AnGaelach wrote: »

but saying that the EU wasn't putting pressure on the Government to re-run it is a tremendously stupid opinion to hold.

If the EU was "putting pressure on the government" about holding referenda then, logically, it should put pressure on them, either, before we hold our first referenda on the various EU treaties (thus reducing the possibility of second referenda), or, it should do so to get us to introduce a simpler mechanism (eg parliamentary in all or most cases) for ratifying EU treaties.

The fact that none of those have happened in the thirty years since the Crotty judgments would seem to indicate that either the pressure is non-existent or that the government doesn't have any issue with resisting it in which case the whole issue is a bit moot.

recedite

murphaph wrote: »

So there is a counterweight to the "evil" Franco-German axis that can prevent stuff it's opposed to from being forced upon them. What's your point again?

Only very recently formed though. And if it ends up in the future with the Franco-German bloc making the rules, but with the Visegrad Bloc just vetoing anything they don't like before it reaches the Council of Ministers, that is still not a huge improvement.
It means power shifting eastwards, and combined with Brexit, it means a small island off the western fringes of Europe has no say in anything. Even in the treatment of its own borders with the UK, as we are finding out now.

Sand

recedite wrote: »

It means power shifting eastwards, and combined with Brexit, it means a small island off the western fringes of Europe has no say in anything. Even in the treatment of its own borders with the UK, as we are finding out now.

As regards Brexit, Ireland has managed to get its Brexit issues recognised by the rest of the EU as being key concerns of the EU negotiating team. Ireland is a small state. It has only a little influence inside the EU. It has zero influence outside it. The EU is a very good thing for Ireland.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Basically, the people who complain about democratic deficits are the people who either want a full-blown federal US of E, or the people who don't want an EU.

Agreed. Most EU federalists would love to grant the EU institutions more authority and an even greater electoral mandate. However the EU institutions only have the power granted to them by the elected EU member states. Almost all of the democratic deficit lies within the remit of the member states, not the institutions themselves. There is nothing stopping the member state governments putting their choice of commissioner to a national election if that is what they want. Of course, the national governments do not want to offer this democratic choice to their people but that is not the EU's fault.

Most of the anti-EU rhetoric is better directed at the national governments of the member states. The Brexit criticism of the EU as undemocratic is ironic given they are a monarchy, with a first past the post electoral system which consistently disenfranchises the majority of voters (In 2015 UKIP got 13% of the votes, 0.2% of the seats), and government of ministers that are appointed rather than facing election for the role. The UK is arguably more undemocratic than the EU.

View

recedite wrote: »

The only time it hasn't worked was when Merkel and Hollande developed a mandatory migrant policy in 2016, but were quite surprised at the level of opposition from the countries in the east of the EU. A new power bloc, The Visegrad Group, was formed, which seems to have successfully defeated the measures.

There are a number of points wrong about this.

First up, the mandatory migratory policy was passed. Second it wasn't developed by Merkel & Hollande. Third it secured overwhelming majority support in the both the EP & the CoM (including support from some of the Visegrad states if I recall correctly).

Lastly, Visegrad group is not a new group. It was set up in 1991 well before the countries concerned joined the EU. It continued on after they joined the EU and is one of a number of informal blocs that meet to discuss common voting positions on issues.

As such you are being completely contradictory. When Germany & France are the ones trying to find common positions, you roundly criticise them. But when the Visegrad states do the exact same thing, you laud them. That's akin to criticising FG for having the temerity to hold parliamentary party meetings while praising FF for doing so.

recedite

View wrote: »

First up, the mandatory migratory policy was passed. Second it wasn't developed by Merkel & Hollande.

The mandatory migrant policy was developed by Merkel and Hollande to "share the burden" after they had stupidly ordered the borders of the EU to be left wide open, and then become swamped with migrants from all over Eurasia and Africa themselves.

Germany and France are to draft common proposals on immigration and security to deal with the worsening emergency. On Monday, Merkel said they could include building new registration centres in Greece and Italy to be run and staffed by the EU as a whole by the end of the year.
She said: ?Time is running out. EU member states must share costs relating to this action.?

The Visegrad Group which had been dwindling in relevance since the members joined the EU was reignited and revitalised, and successfully prevented the Merkel/Hollande bloc from implementing their plan. Which is why there are no mandatory migrant quotas in the EU today.
Instead, we are now paying Erdogan to make them disappear in Turkey, before they can reach Greece.

I do not laud the rise of Visegrad within the EU as an independent power bloc, nor do I laud the exit of the UK. These are simply the natural reactions of countries who resent being lorded over by the Germany/France power bloc. It would have been far better for all the EU countries to have developed policies together, by consensus. Instead of just these two countries developing them, and then arranging via various diplomatic machinations to obtain a majority vote in which the others are seen to "agree".

ancapailldorcha

recedite wrote: »

I do not laud the rise of Visegrad within the EU as an independent power bloc, nor do I laud the exit of the UK. These are simply the natural reactions of countries who resent being lorded over by the Germany/France power bloc. It would have been far better for all the EU countries to have developed policies together, by consensus. Instead of just these two countries developing them, and then arranging via various diplomatic machinations to obtain a majority vote in which the others are seen to "agree".

Sorry but that doesn't wash. In the UK we've had a right-wing press blame the EU for anything and everything bad. The government has been free to preside over hundreds of thousands of people needing food banks to live while lavishly frittering away taxpayers' money on foreign wars and nuclear weapons. If they were being lorded over, they wouldn't have been able to hold a ridiculous referendum conducted with lies and empty promises to leave the club.

murphaph

Some of us also think migrant quotas for EU member states was a good idea. It would have been far more orderly to agree to spread the burden like that. Just because that pillar of human rights Saudi Arabia doesn't want to help gassed Syrian children doesn't mean we should follow suit in the EU.

AnGaelach

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Sorry but that doesn't wash. In the UK we've had a right-wing press blame the EU for anything and everything bad. The government has been free to preside over hundreds of thousands of people needing food banks to live while lavishly frittering away taxpayers' money on foreign wars and nuclear weapons. If they were being lorded over, they wouldn't have been able to hold a ridiculous referendum conducted with lies and empty promises to leave the club.

What on earth does that have to do with anything?

AnGaelach

murphaph wrote: »

Some of us also think migrant quotas for EU member states was a good idea. It would have been far more orderly to agree to spread the burden like that. Just because that pillar of human rights Saudi Arabia doesn't want to help gassed Syrian children doesn't mean we should follow suit in the EU.

And there are those of us who don't.

Just because Germany wants to cause social upheaval in its own country by inviting in a million poor migrants in and molest their women on NYE doesn't mean we should follow suit in Ireland.

murphaph

AnGaelach wrote: »

And there are those of us who don't.

Just because Germany wants to cause social upheaval in its own country by inviting in a million poor migrants in and molest their women on NYE doesn't mean we should follow suit in Ireland.

We'll nobody else was apparently prepared to help. If it had been EU wide and orderly it would have been very different. By the way, social upheaval? Really? I hadn't noticed (and I live here).

Sand

AnGaelach wrote: »

And there are those of us who don't.

Just because Germany wants to cause social upheaval in its own country by inviting in a million poor migrants in and molest their women on NYE doesn't mean we should follow suit in Ireland.

Agreed, support for the EU is not the same as support for dangerous and stupid policies by individual member states. The whole quota policy was simply a panicking Germany trying to force other member states to carry the burden of Merkel's extremely stupid policy-making. Germany made it very clear to Ireland only 7 years ago that when a member state made a mistake, it had to carry the burden by itself.

Germany is just going to have to deal with the consequences of 2015 for the next 50-100 years.

Bit cynical

Essentially the democratic deficit arises from the fact that laws and policies applying to member state citizens can be created through negotiation among leaders of member states with little or no debate among the citizenry. The laws are then presented as a fait acompli to the citizens.

An example in Ireland would be the water framework directive. Leaving aside whether water metering is a good idea or not, there was little or no discussion of it a year or more before it was announced as official government policy and government ministers struggled to explain its rationality to the people. Only years later is it getting the scrutiny it deserves.

A point has been made that this is not a problem with the EU per se but rather with the member states themselves. The water framework directive, for example, was agreed, after all, among the member states and the EU was merely acting on the wishes of those same member states.

However this view fails to take into account the loss of power of the individual voter. Whereas previously laws and policies may have had to undergo parliamentary examination, now they become law on the basis of "Europe". If you are unhappy with the general thrust of these laws, it is not clear exactly how they should be opposed.

In national representative democracy it is fairly simple: you just vote out those who brought in those laws. But when it comes to EU legislation what do you do? You can vote for a different MEP perhaps, but MEPs in general have little power over proposals that are sent to them by the Commission in a given term. They can vote against proposals but they can't stop similar proposals arriving at a later date, and MEPs can't themselves initiate legislation. MEPs have no control over the general direction but merely control the speed. This is why electorates have little interest once an MEP is elected and installed in Brussels.

Therein lies the democratic deficit.

oscarBravo

Bit cynical wrote: »

An example in Ireland would be the water framework directive. Leaving aside whether water metering is a good idea or not...

Why would you leave it aside? It goes to the heart of the matter. Water metering is objectively a good idea.

However this view fails to take into account the loss of power of the individual voter. Whereas previously laws and policies may have had to undergo parliamentary examination, now they become law on the basis of "Europe". If you are unhappy with the general thrust of these laws, it is not clear exactly how they should be opposed.

In national representative democracy it is fairly simple: you just vote out those who brought in those laws.

Great news! I'm unhappy with the fact that religious instruction is deeply embedded in the Irish education system, and want a fully secular education system. Who do I vote out, and what do I do if not enough other people do the same?

Bit cynical

oscarBravo wrote: »

Why would you leave it aside? It goes to the heart of the matter. Water metering is objectively a good idea.

Great news! I'm unhappy with the fact that religious instruction is deeply embedded in the Irish education system, and want a fully secular education system. Who do I vote out, and what do I do if not enough other people do the same?

The point you are attempting to argue here is that sometimes democracies have policies that individual members of the electorate (you in this case) disagree with.

Certainly that will be the case. And it is also the case that representative democracies - just like other forms of government - will be undermined by outside organizations like the Church in your education example.

But the topic of the thread is whether or not democratic deficit exists at the EU level. I would argue that evidence of that is constituted, not by whether this or that policy is arguably a good or bad thing, but by whether it has been arrived at democratically. In the case of water metering it is hard to see how this has been the case.

oscarBravo

Bit cynical wrote: »

But the topic of the thread is whether or not democratic deficit exists at the EU level. I would argue that evidence of that is constituted, not by whether this or that policy is arguably a good or bad thing, but by whether it has been arrived at democratically. In the case of water metering it is hard to see how this has been the case.

...and if you reduce that argument to it's most dumbly simplistic level, you can conclude that a democratic deficit will always exist until every single decision is taken on the basis of the wishes of a bare majority of the EU's population.

The WFD was agreed by the elected representatives of the member states. That's how representative democracy works.

Bit cynical

oscarBravo wrote: »

The WFD was agreed by the elected representatives of the member states. That's how representative democracy works.

In general agreements are made all the time between elected representatives. Laws are then passed according to the democratic procedures in the respective countries.

The issue arises when leaders get together and agree on laws that are created in a supranational law-making institution. These laws then either apply directly in the member countries or are transcribed into national law, in either case bypassing normal national democratic procedure. The leaders have managed to increase their power without a corresponding increase in accountability.

I think most people would agree that this would constitute a democratic deficit.

Now of course, to mitigate this obvious deficit, an elected parliament might be set up to approve laws agreed by member states. In the case of the EU, that is the European Parliament.

The crux of the issue is this: to what extent does the European Parliament succeed in mitigating this deficit?

I would argue that in practice it does not work well. Just looking at the case of Ireland (a country that is fairly pro-EU), we tend not to follow events in the EU Parliament. How many people know what European parliamentary party their TDs belong to? We elect MEPs but then forget about them once elected. I could go on. I think it is fair to say that there is little interest in EU parliamentary affairs until measures are presented to us as a fait accompli and there's nothing we can do about it.

Snickers Man

I think you have to look at the democratic structures in their entirety. If you want to play the "who voted for you?" card across the water then you could come up with evidence of a real "democratic deficit"

Who voted for Rex Tillerson, US Secretary of State (effectively foreign minister)? Nobody
Who voted for Steve Bannon, chief Trump strategist? Nobody
Who voted for the former chairman of Exxon who is now the US Environmental Secretary? Nobody
In fact you could say the same (MUST say the same) for EVERY American member of the cabinet except Trump and Pence, who are voted for on the same ticket with the latter having automatic succession rights to the former if he, Trump, should fail to finish his first term.

Quite apart from the fact, of course, that fewer people voted for the Trump-Pence ticket than voted for Hilary Clinton.

In Britain a few years ago they considered amending their electoral mechanism because the First past the Post system is unfair to the party that comes third in the nation as a whole. The referendum failed but at least they recognised the flaw in their system.

In the US by contrast the system is often (twice in the last five elctions) unfair to the party that comes FIRST in the nation as a whole!!

Then again the Brits have wonderful modern democractic mechanisms like the House of Lords with its hereditary peers and its Monarchy.

Yanks and Brits complaining about the "democratic deficit" in the EU have a bloody cheek!!

Bit cynical

Snickers Man wrote: »

Then again the Brits have wonderful modern democractic mechanisms like the House of Lords with its hereditary peers and its Monarchy.

Well I think most hereditary peers no longer sit in the Lords in the UK.

Peregrinus

Bit cynical wrote: »

Well I think most hereditary peers no longer sit in the Lords in the UK.

No, there's only about a ninetly hereditary peers sitting the Lords now. But all hereditary peers have a vote to elect those who will sit in the House of Lords. Commoners have no such vote.

View

recedite wrote: »

The mandatory migrant policy was developed by Merkel and Hollande to "share the burden" after they had stupidly ordered the borders of the EU to be left wide open, and then become swamped with migrants from all over Eurasia and Africa themselves.

This is a load of nonsense.

First up, only the Commission (and I believe in certain limited cases the ECB) can make proposals to the EP & the CoM. This they did in the case of the refugee sharing programme and this was supported by an overwhelming majority of MEPs and member states.

Second, it is up to each member state, not "the EU", to maintain its own borders. The head of government of one member state has no more power to order another member state to open its borders than you or I do.

Third, the refugee sharing programme does not apply to refugees in either Germany or France so your point about them developing the programme as they became "swamped with migrants" is nonsense.

recedite wrote: »

The Visegrad Group which had been dwindling in relevance since the members joined the EU was reignited and revitalised, and successfully prevented the Merkel/Hollande bloc from implementing their plan.

The Visegrad group has not been dwindling. It like many other partnerships within the EU survive quite happily.

Nor did it prevent the refugee sharing programme from being passed. Indeed two of the group supported it in the CoM.

The other two meanwhile were in the CJEU last Wednesday challenging the law on it, as is their perogative. They'd hardly do that if the law hadn't passed, would they?

recedite wrote: »

I do not laud the rise of Visegrad within the EU as an independent power bloc, nor do I laud the exit of the UK. These are simply the natural reactions of countries who resent being lorded over by the Germany/France power bloc. It would have been far better for all the EU countries to have developed policies together, by consensus. Instead of just these two countries developing them, and then arranging via various diplomatic machinations to obtain a majority vote in which the others are seen to "agree".

Member states are perfectly entitled to form formal or informal groups on one or more measures in different areas as they see fit. All member states seek out other countries to support their viewpoint and/or arrive at a common viewpoint that they can support. None of the members of any group have the ability to "lord" it over other member states as their interests change from topic to topic. The Visegrad countries do this just as surely as other countries such as Germany and France do it. You are being hypocritical in the extreme if you support some member states when they seek to act jointly and oppose others when they do so.

View

Sand wrote: »

Agreed, support for the EU is not the same as support for dangerous and stupid policies by individual member states. The whole quota policy was simply a panicking Germany trying to force other member states to carry the burden of Merkel's extremely stupid policy-making.

The quota system does not apply to refugees granted asylum by Germany. As such your point is irrelevant as no other member state will take or be expected to take any of those refugees.

recedite

View wrote: »

First up, only the Commission (and I believe in certain limited cases the ECB) can make proposals to the EP & the CoM. This they did in the case of the refugee sharing programme and this was supported by an overwhelming majority of MEPs and member states.

Proposals such as the Dublin Agreement, which said migrants should be registered in the EU country of first arrival, and which Hungary was implementing. Yet in Sept 2015 Merkel decided unilaterally that Germany would no longer comply with this rule, and asked the peripheral countries to open up their borders and send the migrants northwards. Greece complied with this request, but Hungary built a fence.

Second, it is up to each member state, not "the EU", to maintain its own borders. The head of government of one member state has no more power to order another member state to open its borders than you or I do.

It was more a "request" by Merkel.
While national borders are still in place, Schengen and Frontex mean its not as simple as that. There were two diametrically opposed "joint efforts" within the EU in the last few years. The Italian program originated as "Mare Nostrum" was supported by most countries including Ireland. It involved naval vessels travelling to to Libyan 12 mile territorial limit, where they picked up migrants in rubber dinghies and ferried them to Italy. (Irish involvement seems to have been quietly discontinued since the end of last year)
Then there was the Visegrad joint effort, where various countries sent police and soldiers to Hungary to help reinforce their EU external border, in an effort to prevent the same sort of mass migration that was being facilitated elsewhere in the Meditteranean.

Third, the refugee sharing programme does not apply to refugees in either Germany or France ..

I'm not sure that is accurate.

The Visegrad group has not been dwindling. It like many other partnerships within the EU survive quite happily.
Nor did it prevent the refugee sharing programme from being passed. Indeed two of the group supported it in the CoM.

The other two meanwhile were in the CJEU last Wednesday challenging the law on it, as is their perogative. They'd hardly do that if the law hadn't passed, would they?

Who said it hadn't been passed? Mandatory migrant quotas were an idea developed by the Merkel/Hollande partnership.
But they cannot be enforced because the Visegrad countries oppose them, and these countries are now too organised to be steamrolled over.
Given the overall realpolitik, with Brexit happening and French leadership shifting from Left/Centre to Centre/Right. The French National Front getting its biggest ever vote. Ditto with Wilders in the Netherlands. The EU can ill afford to force through a policy that could tear whats left of it apart.

oscarBravo

recedite wrote: »

Proposals such as the Dublin Agreement, which said migrants should be registered in the EU country of first arrival...

No, it didn't. I'm pretty sure you know it didn't, because every time that particular fiction has been trotted out on this forum it has been pointed out that it's not true.

demfad

Where possible local Governments tends to blame the EU for bad things that happen while taking credit for good things.
Immediately you have a grey area for people to explain the perceived failings of the EU through ideas like 'Democratic deficit' etc.

Let's look at a simple example of how perception of 'Democratic deficit' in the EU parliament could be quickly improved by local parties while actually improving the strenght of the EPs democracy and EU citizens understanding of the EU.

In a local (State) election you vote for a party or an independent who will represent you in the parliament. Even in this direct system many people in many states often perceive a disconnect with politicians.

Now lets look at EU elections: You vote for local candidates for local parties. But these parties don't represent you at the EU parliament, they join bigger groups there who represent your interests. Parties do not pretend to discuss what type of EU this bigger group is striving for, infact most of the electorate does not even know the name of the group their candidate is in.

These reduces a communal perception amongst the EU electorate about trying to achieve things and adapt the Union for all citizens. Rather it produces disproportionately more super parish pump candidates, protest candidates even anti-EU candidates.

By simply having candidates canvass under their EU group this forces real EU policies into the doorstep discussions during elections, forces the candidate to explain what his group intends to do, and has done when he returns for re-election.

The citizen has a clearer view of how the EU works, is more likely to vote based on policy and feels more democratically connected to the EU.
The EU in return receives more de facto democratic mandate.

Edit: Vote S and D in '19!!!

recedite

oscarBravo wrote: »

No, it didn't.

If you want to be pedantic about it, the rule that migrants should be processed in the country of first arrival actually preceded the Dublin regulation, whereas that regulation just clarified that a migrant who had travelled through the first country without stopping, could be sent back to it.

Either way, Hungary and the Visegrad countries always complied fully with the EU rules. It was only after the Hollande/Merkel partnership encouraged unvetted and uncontrolled mass migration into the Schengen area that the "need" for mandatory migrant quotas arose. Under those circumstances, the countries who had played by the EU rules all along (the Visegrad ones) are understandably annoyed at these new rules.

The UK meanwhile refused to accept this uncontrolled migration arriving via Schengen and Calais. Instead they opted to set up registration centres in the refugee camps around Syria, from which to grant asylum to genuine refugees and transport them direct to the UK.

So, multiple different EU policies were in operation. In hindsight it seems that the Hollande/Merkel policy was the worst. And yet they had the most influence on the EU.

sameoldname

recedite wrote: »

If you want to be pedantic about it, the rule that migrants should be processed in the country of first arrival actually preceded the Dublin regulation, whereas that regulation just clarified that a migrant who had travelled through the first country without stopping, could be sent back to it.

Either way, Hungary and the Visegrad countries always complied fully with the EU rules. It was only after the Hollande/Merkel partnership encouraged unvetted and uncontrolled mass migration into the Schengen area that the "need" for mandatory migrant quotas arose. Under those circumstances, the countries who had played by the EU rules all along (the Visegrad ones) are understandably annoyed at these new rules.

The UK meanwhile refused to accept this uncontrolled migration arriving via Schengen and Calais. Instead they opted to set up registration centres in the refugee camps around Syria, from which to grant asylum to genuine refugees and transport them direct to the UK.

So, multiple different EU policies were in operation. In hindsight it seems that the Hollande/Merkel policy was the worst. And yet they had the most influence on the EU.

If I recall correctly, it was actually Italy threatening to give migrants visa's to allow them to travel anywhere in the EU unless other countries helped out that lead to Merkel opening up Germany's borders.

Sand

View wrote: »

The quota system does not apply to refugees granted asylum by Germany. As such your point is irrelevant as no other member state will take or be expected to take any of those refugees.

Of course not, Germany granted them asylum, the application process is over.

So your point is irrelevant and misleading. The quota system for applicants was pushed for desperately by Merkel because it was in Germany's interests. This was widely acknowledged in all reports, and Merkel argued for it on the basis that Germany was receiving so many migrants (and to a lesser extent asylum applications) compared to its neighbours. So don't mislead people by pretending there is no connection.

It did apply to the millions of people still travelling north from Africa and west from Asia to Germany to take up Merkel on the offer she made in 2015, overwhelming poorer countries like Greece, Italy, Hungary, Macedonia and Austria in their path. Thankfully, the quota scheme is dead on arrival. The problem is of Germany's making. They have to pay for it for the next century.

AnGaelach

demfad wrote: »

Edit: Vote S and D in '19!!!

That's a strange way to spell ECR.