EU Democratic Deficit

mick087

looksee wrote: »

Can you be a bit specific about what the EU refused to change that led to Brexit? Bearing in mind, of course, that just because the UK wanted something to change it would not happen unless the other members wanted it also.

If there was something specific and the UK could not get all the other members to accommodate them, the only options were that the UK accepted that it was outnumbered and carried on with the status quo, or it could leave.

I don't think that the UK left because the EU 'refused to change', it left because some of the people running the country persuaded voters that things would be better on the other side of Brexit.

So what was the EU expected to do? Was it expected to save the UK from itself? What change were they expected to make? The UK left, why would the EU have any obligations of any sort to the UK, except insofar as it was of benefit to the EU. Why would an independent, sovereign country like the UK need any concessions from the EU - the EU that it had spoken of with contempt, and where the government and press had persuaded the UK voters that anything that went wrong in the UK was down to the EU?

I would not say any one thing was specific but a combination of EU law Democratic deficit in the European Union and immigration. These voices had been growing for a long time and nothing was really done. The UK was never really Europeans.
I would disagree. People voted to leave for various reasons not just because they was led to believe they would be retuning to the good ole days. People voted over issues I stated above and many more besides.
I don’t think the UK needs saving they will be ok as the UK or as separate independent countries. The EU will need to take a long look at itself when Brexit is finally over it will need to answer about its role and its worth to it citizens. I could see more integration coming.

fash

mick087 wrote: »

I would not say any one thing was specific but a combination of EU law Democratic deficit in the European Union and immigration.

In what way has the EU a democratic deficit? (Please be specific- I've a suspicion you are using the term without actually knowing much if anything about democracy in the EU -something which is far greater than in the UK for example).
In what way should the EU deal with migration - and considering that it has effectively no power in this are- in what way are you suggesting that power should be transferred to it from member states?

mick087

fash wrote: »

In what way has the EU a democratic deficit? (Please be specific- I've a suspicion you are using the term without actually knowing much if anything about democracy in the EU -something which is far greater than in the UK for example).
In what way should the EU deal with migration - and considering that it has effectively no power in this are- in what way are you suggesting that power should be transferred to it from member states?

These are opinions reason UK citizens voted to leave the EU not mine. Im not a UK citizen and was not allowed to vote in the UK referendum.

Voting for a MEP is a democratic process yes as is The UK voting for its Mps is democratic. But after this process the EU selction process is not in anyway democratic.

VinLieger

mick087 wrote: »

These are opinions reason UK citizens voted to leave the EU not mine. Im not a UK citizen and was not allowed to vote in the UK referendum.

Voting for a MEP is a democratic process yes as is The UK voting for its Mps is democratic. But after this process the EU selction process is not in anyway democratic.

Below is a handy chart detailing the UK Government levels and their selection processes VS the EU's. Please keep in mind im simply using this as an informational tool and not trying to put down the UK's section process but from the information detailed in it can you please point out to us exactly which parts of the EU selection processes are undemocratic?

timetogo1

VinLieger wrote: »

Below is a handy chart detailing the UK Government levels and their selection processes VS the EU's. Please keep in mind im simply using this as an informational tool and not trying to put down the UK's section process but from the information detailed in it can you please point out to us exactly which parts of the EU selection processes are undemocratic?

It's mad that this kind of stuff still has to be repeated 4 years after the referendum.
I suppose it'll still be needed 10 years from now.

Jizique

mick087 wrote: »

These are opinions reason UK citizens voted to leave the EU not mine. Im not a UK citizen and was not allowed to vote in the UK referendum.

Voting for a MEP is a democratic process yes as is The UK voting for its Mps is democratic. But after this process the EU selction process is not in anyway democratic.

The UK first past the post system and the upper house is anything but democratic

fash

mick087 wrote: »

These are opinions reason UK citizens voted to leave the EU not mine. Im not a UK citizen and was not allowed to vote in the UK referendum.

Voting for a MEP is a democratic process yes as is The UK voting for its Mps is democratic. But after this process the EU selction process is not in anyway democratic.

how and why is it not democratic? Especially compared to the UK system ( who voted for the Queen? For the House of lords? For Johnson to be put into a Tory safe seat? How is a FPTP system democratic?)

mick087

VinLieger wrote: »

Below is a handy chart detailing the UK Government levels and their selection processes VS the EU's. Please keep in mind im simply using this as an informational tool and not trying to put down the UK's section process but from the information detailed in it can you please point out to us exactly which parts of the EU selection processes are undemocratic?

Im not sure what the point of this is.
Are you showing me that royalty is undemocratic?

Do you really want to go into what being democratic is about.

Belive me i have little time for anything as undemocratic as a royal family or selceted not elected leaders.

VinLieger

mick087 wrote: »

Im not sure what the point of this is.
Are you showing me that royalty is undemocratic?

Do you really want to go into what being democratic is about.

Belive me i have little time for anything as undemocratic as a royal family or selceted not elected leaders.

Okay im going to do this once more.


I very specifically stated that the point of the image was informational and not about saying anything bad about the UK government selection process, so please stop intentionally misreading or interpreting posts and dodging questions with straw men, whataboutery, deflections and ad hominem arguments.



Now back on topic you clearly claimed that beyond the MEP elections the EU selection processs was undemocratic, I provided you with every major selection process of the EU and how they were decided so can you please point to which are undemocratic and how?

paul71

mick087 wrote: »

Im not sure what the point of this is.
Are you showing me that royalty is undemocratic?

Do you really want to go into what being democratic is about.

Belive me i have little time for anything as undemocratic as a royal family or selceted not elected leaders.

He is making a direct and Demonstrable comparison in an easily understandable format, which proves the EU is fundamentally democratic whereas the UK is is far less so.

It contradicts your unsupported statements and failure to understand that is a willful decision on your part not to correct your prejudices.

mick087

Jizique wrote: »

The UK first past the post system and the upper house is anything but democratic

TheUK Upper house is a totaly undemocratic with unelected selcted individuals given ridiculous pompous titles. If i was a Brit id like to see a end to this but im not.

There first past the post system is democratic.

mick087

paul71 wrote: »

He is making a direct and Demonstrable comparison in an easily understandable format, which proves the EU is fundamentally democratic whereas the UK is is far less so.

It contradicts your unsupported statements and failure to understand that is a willful decision on your part not to correct your prejudices.

But who is the EU democratic to its Citizens or its selcted?
Royality would be even more undemocratic they are not even selcted.
The UK upper house non elected by its citizens this is not democratic.

That chart shows that there is democratic and undemocratic structures that could change to make them more accountable to it citizens.

Sam Russell

mick087 wrote: »

TheUK Upper house is a totaly undemocratic with unelected selcted individuals given ridiculous pompous titles. If i was a Brit id like to see a end to this but im not.

There* first past the post system is democratic.

No it is not.

Not since 1932 has a single party Gov been formed with a simple majority of the popular vote. Margaret Thatcher was elected by no more than 42% of the popular vote in any of the elections she won. The FPTP system allows a large number of constituencies to have their MPs selected by a small cabal of party stalwarts, and the selected person is certain to be elected.

This applies to some Labour seats, but mostly to Tory seats. How else would the likes of the bone head MPs like Grayling get elected. Raab, as the Brexit Secretary confessed to the Brexit committee that he had never read the Good Friday Agreement, a 34 page booklet sent to every home on this island. At the time the GFA was central problem to the negotiations he was leading.

*By the way, it is [their] not [there].

mick087

fash wrote: »

how and why is it not democratic? Especially compared to the UK system ( who voted for the Queen? For the House of lords? For Johnson to be put into a Tory safe seat? How is a FPTP system democratic?)

I dont think anyone votes for the queen.
Im not a fan of royality to be honest.

House of lords is another undemocratic organisation

These powerful structures should be democratic and elected by its citizens.

I think we have gone through all this before with you.

Johnson and his safe seat yes its a safe seat but never the less he is elected by the citizens.

mick087

Sam Russell wrote: »

No it is not.

Not since 1932 has a single party Gov been formed with a simple majority of the popular vote. Margaret Thatcher was elected by no more than 42% of the popular vote in any of the elections she won. The FPTP system allows a large number of constituencies to have their MPs selected by a small cabal of party stalwarts, and the selected person is certain to be elected.

This applies to some Labour seats, but mostly to Tory seats. How else would the likes of the bone head MPs like Grayling get elected. Raab, as the Brexit Secretary confessed to the Brexit committee that he had never read the Good Friday Agreement, a 34 page booklet sent to every home on this island. At the time the GFA was central problem to the negotiations he was leading.

*By the way, it is [their] not [there].

Yes it is.

Its just that you dont like it.

Also the UK had a vote not so long ago to keep the first past the post system or cahnge to a system like ours.

Our system for voting a TD and there system in voting a MP are both very democratic differernt but democratic.

But you understood when i said there and not their yes?
Is my spelling gramnmer an issue for you?

looksee

Is my spelling gramnmer an issue for you?

Since you ask, yes. Your answers have to be read slowly and punctuation mentally inserted to make sense of them. It is distracting and takes away from the flow of the discussion. However, we are managing to make sense of it. Maybe there is a good reason why you have issues, and you are entitled to offer your opinions, so we will press on.

Can we clarify what it is we are arguing about. On the one hand you seem to suggest that the UK had to leave because the EU was undemocratic and that this in some way gave them obligations towards the UK. On the other hand the UK is undemocratic but that's ok because Johnson was elected. I think.

How does the UK's lack of democracy create an obligation or responsibility towards them by the EU? You say the UK never really wanted to be Europeans - and most people would concur with this. But again, how does this make the EU responsible for their (the UK's) membership, and why should the EU make changes for them?

VinLieger

mick087 wrote: »

Yes it is.

Its just that you dont like it.

Also the UK had a vote not so long ago to keep the first past the post system or cahnge to a system like ours.

Our system for voting a TD and there system in voting a MP are both very democratic differernt but democratic.

But you understood when i said there and not their yes?
Is my spelling gramnmer an issue for you?

How is a voting system that has elected just 1 Government by a majority, thanks solely to it being a coalition, in almost 100 years democratic?

Also just to help you heres a very simple video explaining how undemocratic FPtP is vs PR-STV

https://youtu.be/s7tWHJfhiyo

Can you please finally answer how the EU is undemocratic? Ive been waiting quite a while now and you've dodged the question more than enough.

VinLieger

mick087 wrote: »

That chart shows that there is democratic and undemocratic structures that could change to make them more accountable to it citizens.

Which ones exactly on the EU side are undemocratic and why?

paul71

mick087 wrote: »

But who is the EU democratic to its Citizens or its selcted?
Royality would be even more undemocratic they are not even selcted.
The UK upper house non elected by its citizens this is not democratic.

That chart shows that there is democratic and undemocratic structures that could change to make them more accountable to it citizens.

Please, I am not being argumentative but that is incomprehensible.

"But who is the EU democratic to its Citizens or its selcted?"

Can you retype that, its garbled.

"Royality would be even more undemocratic they are not even selcted."

Again, no idea what you are saying.

"The UK upper house non elected by its citizens this is not democratic."

Yes so you agree.

"That chart shows that there is democratic and undemocratic structures that could change to make them more accountable to it citizens."

The ONLY undemocratic institutions on the chart are in the UK, so you agree?

mick087

paul71 wrote: »

Please, I am not being argumentative but that is incomprehensible.

"But who is the EU democratic to its Citizens or its selcted?"

Can you retype that, its garbled.

"Royality would be even more undemocratic they are not even selcted."

Again, no idea what you are saying.

"The UK upper house non elected by its citizens this is not democratic."

Yes so you agree.

"That chart shows that there is democratic and undemocratic structures that could change to make them more accountable to it citizens."

The ONLY undemocratic institutions on the chart are in the UK, so you agree?

Yes i can be guilty of not explaining something properly.
The EU democratic comment, i think you was coming in on a comment i had made.

Here i was pointing out that parts of the EU are in positions of power and have not been elected by its Citizens but selected by member states elected government's.

The UK upper house is what i would call a selection process, this is not democratic at all. Yes i agree 100%

Royalty would not be democratic they are born into Royalty they are not elected by its citizens. They don't even go through a selection process through its elected government. This to is undemocratic but more so than the selected upper house.

The chart shows both have selected not elected by bodies of great power.
The UK does have monarchy as head of state like other European countries have. I have no idea what Europeans fascination of having a monarchy is.

mick087

VinLieger wrote: »

Can you please finally answer how the EU is undemocratic? Ive been waiting quite a while now and you've dodged the question more than enough.

MEPs are voted for by its citizens and the they are accountable to its citizens this is democratic.

When you get to the wheels of the real power as in the commission then this is not democratic to its citizens.

Each of the state members elected government select someone as commissioner but bypassing its citizens. This makes them unaccountable not only its own member state citizens but all member state citizens.

Non of the commissioners are elected sitting MEPS non of them area accountable to its citizens. All the commissioners are selected and not elected by its citizens. This is not democratic.

fash

mick087 wrote: »

MEPs are voted for by its citizens and the they are accountable to its citizens this is democratic.

When you get to the wheels of the real power as in the commission then this is not democratic to its citizens.

Each of the state members elected government select someone as commissioner but bypassing its citizens. This makes them unaccountable not only its own member state citizens but all member state citizens.

Non of the commissioners are elected sitting MEPS non of them area accountable to its citizens. All the commissioners are selected and not elected by its citizens. This is not democratic.

Aside from disputing the relative powers of the EU parliament and other organs, isn't that similar to how the electoral colleges work in the US (and for selecting/electing a much more powerful role) ? Is the American system (even more) undemocratic?
Furthermore is it more or less democratic to give a relatively stronger voice to smaller member states rather than have them drowned out by larger states? (And please explain/justify your choice)

namloc1980

mick087 wrote: »

MEPs are voted for by its citizens and the they are accountable to its citizens this is democratic.

When you get to the wheels of the real power as in the commission then this is not democratic to its citizens.

Each of the state members elected government select someone as commissioner but bypassing its citizens. This makes them unaccountable not only its own member state citizens but all member state citizens.

Non of the commissioners are elected sitting MEPS non of them area accountable to its citizens. All the commissioners are selected and not elected by its citizens. This is not democratic.

You are not surely suggesting we should elect commissioners are you? The commissioners are nominated by national governments (who are elected by citizens) and confirmed by the MEPs (who are elected by the citizens).

This is similar to cabinet positions in the United States. Nobody elected Betsy de Vos to be Education secretary for example.

Wanderer78

check out varoufakis's 'adults in the room', if you think theres no democratic issues within eu institutions

Hermy

mick087 wrote: »

MEPs are voted for by its citizens and the they are accountable to its citizens this is democratic.

When you get to the wheels of the real power as in the commission then this is not democratic to its citizens.

Each of the state members elected government select someone as commissioner but bypassing its citizens. This makes them unaccountable not only its own member state citizens but all member state citizens.

Non of the commissioners are elected sitting MEPS non of them area accountable to its citizens. All the commissioners are selected and not elected by its citizens. This is not democratic.

This is where I was twenty years ago when I eagerly rejected all four Nice and Lisbon referenda. I swallowed the line that the EU was fundamentally undemocratic because I didn't get to vote on every appointment and decision made.
But the whole point of voting people into office - whether that be at local, national or supranational level in the case of the EU - is that those people then have executive powers to make decisions and appointments on our behalves.
This is not undemocratic and those elected or selected are not unaccountable.
The alternative would be to have the electorate vote on every matter that comes before the governing body and that would be chaotic.

mick087

looksee wrote: »

Since you ask, yes. Your answers have to be read slowly and punctuation mentally inserted to make sense of them. It is distracting and takes away from the flow of the discussion. However, we are managing to make sense of it. Maybe there is a good reason why you have issues, and you are entitled to offer your opinions, so we will press on.

Can we clarify what it is we are arguing about. On the one hand you seem to suggest that the UK had to leave because the EU was undemocratic and that this in some way gave them obligations towards the UK. On the other hand the UK is undemocratic but that's ok because Johnson was elected. I think.

How does the UK's lack of democracy create an obligation or responsibility towards them by the EU? You say the UK never really wanted to be Europeans - and most people would concur with this. But again, how does this make the EU responsible for their (the UK's) membership, and why should the EU make changes for them?

Educational prejudice can be quite upsetting and demoralising but i don't actually buy into you thinking this is an issue. More than likely the real issue is i don't agree with some of the comments or maybe your ow personnel view point.

No i have never suggested the UK had to leave the EU because it was undemocratic you are deliberately exaggerating what i have said. I said this was one of many reasons that the UK voters decided to leave the EU not that they had to.

The UK like the EU lacks democracy in that the UK have a selected upper house and the EU have a selected commission.


Yes correct Johnson was elected and now he is accountable to his citizens in his constituency.


The EU did not change and the UK left.

Sam Russell

Democracy is implemented differently in every democratic country in the world. Our system of STV voting is almost unique in the world. Some countries use a list system, a mixed personal vote system plus a list system. It varies, but in the end, people vote their government in. The EU insists that basic democratic norms are kept in all member states.

MEPs are elected directly by the citizens of the member state by some form of proportional representation. So that is democratic. Some member states have variations on what that means, but it is fundamentally democratic.

The Commission is appointed by each member state appointing one commissioner. The Government in question is assumed to be democratic, and each member state is allowed to hold elections for the commissioner but none do. The Commission is approved by the European Parliament, with each commissioner being before a committee for approval, and the whole commission can be sacked by the EP. So it is accountable to a democratic body. So it is under democratic control.

The European Council is made up of serving Prime Ministers for each member state, who are democratically elected, so that body is democratic.

So if all pillars are democratic, or under democratic accountability, where is the democratic deficit?

mick087

fash wrote: »

Aside from disputing the relative powers of the EU parliament and other organs, isn't that similar to how the electoral colleges work in the US (and for selecting/electing a much more powerful role) ? Is the American system (even more) undemocratic?
Furthermore is it more or less democratic to give a relatively stronger voice to smaller member states rather than have them drowned out by larger states? (And please explain/justify your choice)

I wouldn't be clued up on how it works in America.


I don't buy into this smaller states not being drowned out by the larger states. There is much inequality throughout the EU states.

The only way you can have a strong voice is through its citizens.

VinLieger

mick087 wrote: »

MEPs are voted for by its citizens and the they are accountable to its citizens this is democratic.

When you get to the wheels of the real power as in the commission then this is not democratic to its citizens.

Each of the state members elected government select someone as commissioner but bypassing its citizens. This makes them unaccountable not only its own member state citizens but all member state citizens.

Non of the commissioners are elected sitting MEPS non of them area accountable to its citizens. All the commissioners are selected and not elected by its citizens. This is not democratic.

I didnt get a say in who was going to be Minister for Justice in the new Irish Government, your twisted logic and infantile definition of democracy means this is equally as undemocratic because we didnt get a say in every cabinet position.


Also what happened with Phil Hogan completely disproves your point that the commissioners are unaccountable to their citizens. He did wrong and resigned, accountability.


What you seem to be calling for is that we have a say on every single decision that is ever made at any level of Ireland or the EU?

Sam Russell

mick087 wrote: »

Educational prejudice can be quite upsetting and demoralising but i don't actually buy into you thinking this is an issue. More than likely the real issue is i don't agree with some of the comments or maybe your ow personnel view point.

No i have never suggested the UK had to leave the EU because it was undemocratic you are deliberately exaggerating what i have said. I said this was one of many reasons that the UK voters decided to leave the EU not that they had to.

The UK like the EU lacks democracy in that the UK have a selected upper house and the EU have a selected commission.


Yes correct Johnson was elected and now he is accountable to his citizens in his constituency.


The EU did not change and the UK left.

The House of Lords is not a 'selected' house. It consists of heredatory peers who are descended from the same stock of privileged classes that owe their wealth to historical graft granted by previous monarchs. Also, 'life peers' are appointed by political parties to gift privileged positions to retired, failed or other disappointed politicians, and to party donors. The appointment of such 'life peers' is completely opaque, and the opposite of democratic.

It should be abolished, and replaced by a more democratic institution.

mick087

namloc1980 wrote: »

You are not surely suggesting we should elect commissioners are you? The commissioners are nominated by national governments (who are elected by citizens) and confirmed by the MEPs (who are elected by the citizens).

This is similar to cabinet positions in the United States. Nobody elected Betsy de Vos to be Education secretary for example.

I would not be able to comment on the USA. But if the gentleman is in a unelected position of power and i lived in America id want to know how as a citizen i could get rid of him.

Yes why not why should we not be permitted to vote for our state commissioner?

If the commissioners were an elected MEP then yes you could compare this to a minister. A minister is first elected by its citizens as a TD. The citizens first vote for him to become a TD. A commissioner is not elected by citizens at any point.

So if the commissioner was selected from the elected MEPS then yes that would be more democratic and also answerable to its citizens.

Sam Russell

mick087 wrote: »

I would not be able to comment on the USA. But if the gentleman is in a unelected position of power and i lived in America id want to know how as a citizen i could get rid of him.

Yes why not why should we not be permitted to vote for our state commissioner?

If the commissioners were an elected MEP then yes you could compare this to a minister. A minister is first elected by its citizens as a TD. The citizens first vote for him to become a TD. A commissioner is not elected by citizens at any point.

So if the commissioner was selected from the elected MEPS then yes that would be more democratic and also answerable to its citizens.

As I pointed out above, each member state can select a commissioner by holding an election for the position, but none do. The fact that the commissioner is selected by the member state's elected government does not make his/her appointment undemocratic.

The Garda Commissioner is a powerful position appointed by our government - do you have a problem with that?

mick087

Hermy wrote: »

This is where I was twenty years ago when I eagerly rejected all four Nice and Lisbon referenda. I swallowed the line that the EU was fundamentally undemocratic because I didn't get to vote on every appointment and decision made.
But the whole point of voting people into office - whether that be at local, national or supranational level in the case of the EU - is that those people then have executive powers to make decisions and appointments on our behalves.
This is not undemocratic and those elected or selected are not unaccountable.
The alternative would be to have the electorate vote on every matter that comes before the governing body and that would be chaotic.

But we the citizens do not vote for the commissioners.They have great powers and are not accountable to it citizens. If we was to vote for our state commissioner he would then be answerable to its citizens.

I would disagree and say it is undemocratic to its citizens. Appointments as important as this should be made for and by it citizens

Again i disagree the selected are not accountable to it citizens

I don't see why it would be chaotic.

ArmaniJeanss

Mick, Under your idea we'd be voting for commissioner without knowing what portfolio they were getting?
That doesn't seem great - given a list of plausible Irish names I'd probably consider some suitable for a financial portfolio, others for manufacturing or agricultural/production rolls. Not sure how it improves my democracy.

Also it's possible that every country would individually vote for a 70+ year-old male ex-farmer, despite presumably no voter in any country actually wanting the entire commission to be made up as such.

The current system isn't perfect, but the holes being picked in it seem a bit silly. It looks like a sensible compromise.

mick087

VinLieger wrote: »

I didnt get a say in who was going to be Minister for Justice in the new Irish Government, your twisted logic and infantile definition of democracy means this is equally as undemocratic because we didnt get a say in every cabinet position.


Also what happened with Phil Hogan completely disproves your point that the commissioners are unaccountable to their citizens. He did wrong and resigned, accountability.


What you seem to be calling for is that we have a say on every single decision that is ever made at any level of Ireland or the EU?

Charlie Flanagan is the minister of justice. Before this appointment he was first elected by the citizens as a TD. He is now in the spotlight more in his role as a minister. This in turn makes him even more accountable to his citizens

This is not twisted logic. Twisted logic is having someone selected near elected into a position of great power. Who is the commissioner accountable to? Not me the citizen.

Charlie Flanagan powers can be taken away by its citizens at a general election. Citizens currently are not able to do this. This is not democratic to its citizens.

Not every single decision of course not no. Key posts should be elected by its citizens and accountable to its citizens

Sam Russell

mick087 wrote: »

Charlie Flanagan is the minister of justice.

He is not Minister for Justice.

mick087

Sam Russell wrote: »

As I pointed out above, each member state can select a commissioner by holding an election for the position, but none do. The fact that the commissioner is selected by the member state's elected government does not make his/her appointment undemocratic.

The Garda Commissioner is a powerful position appointed by our government - do you have a problem with that?

Elections should be held by each state for its commissioner.
There should be no veto by other member states if a Commissioner is elected by its citizens.

Yes i would indeed argue for for much more accountability to its citizens be it the Garda Commissioneror or powerful civil servants.

View

Commissioners are NOT appointed by each member state.

Rather, each member state has the right to make a nominee for a position of Commissioner.

It is then up to European Parliament whether that nominee is accepted or rejected. The EP holds full hearings on each nominee and the committee concerned decides whether to recommend approval or rejection of each of the nominees to the plenary session of the EP. At that point, if anyone is recommended for rejection, the member state concerned withdraws their nomination and replaces them with another candidate.

Once the committee has given positive recommendations for all nominees, the EP holds a plenary session and holds a vote of approval on the nominees as a whole. Should that vote be approved by the full EP, then and only then are the nominees formally appointed to the Commission by the European Council.


It should be noted that Ireland is in no position to lecture anyone on the democratic nature of the Commission since it was us falling for the “Save the Irish Commissioner” guff during the Lisbon referendum that upended the very small step to reform the Commission, after people had spent years trying to reach a consensus on a way forward from the current method.

mick087

Sam Russell wrote: »

He is not Minister for Justice.

Yes correction he was the Minister of Justice to recently.
Helen McEntee is now the Minister who was first elected as a TD before being selected as a minister.

View

mick087 wrote: »

Elections should be held by each state for its commissioner.
There should be no veto by other member states if a Commissioner is elected by its citizens.

Yes i would indeed argue for for much more accountability to its citizens be it the Garda Commissioneror or powerful civil servants.

Commissioners are there to act on behalf of the EU as a whole and are directly answerable to the European Parliament.

A Commissioner who is behoven to the electorate of a particular member state can not act independently on behalf of all member states. Were a Commissioner elected on an “anti-CAP policy”, there is no way that Ireland would want them in office, much less acting on our behalf. If you remember, during Lisbon, the IFA ran an anti-Peter Mandelson campaign on precisely those grounds.

View

mick087 wrote: »

Charlie Flanagan is the minister of justice. Before this appointment he was first elected by the citizens as a TD. He is now in the spotlight more in his role as a minister. This in turn makes him even more accountable to his citizens

This is not twisted logic. Twisted logic is having someone selected near elected into a position of great power. Who is the commissioner accountable to? Not me the citizen.

Charlie Flanagan powers can be taken away by its citizens at a general election. Citizens currently are not able to do this. This is not democratic to its citizens.

Not every single decision of course not no. Key posts should be elected by its citizens and accountable to its citizens

The Commission is accountable to the European Parliament as laid out in the EU Treaties as democratically approved by the Oireachtas (directly) and the electorate (indirectly via our referenda).

Hermy

mick087 wrote: »

I don't see why it would be chaotic.

Asking the electorate to vote on every issue that would otherwise be decided by government would require elections every week.

How could that be described as anything other than chaotic?

Podge_irl

The EU is not a federal body. Those demanding more direct elections to its positions of power are in fact demanding it become a federal body.

The EU is, for the most part, beholden to its member states not its member citizens because it is a supranational body, not a federal one.

looksee

We elect TDs - the people elect - then trust the resulting government to use those people as appropriate. It might be more relevant if you were arguing that the Taoiseach should be elected by the people. I am a good deal less than enthused that Mairead McGuinness is now Commissioner but the time for disputing that will be at the next election. If we were voting for a Commissioner would it be from a pool of basically anyone, or would it be an already elected TD?

This discussion is using the appointment of Commissioners as a basis for claiming there is an EU democratic deficit, it has already been well established in the thread that the EU is a democratic institution, certainly more so than the UK government. It is a minor detail whether the system of appointing Commissioners is democratic. The other members don't seem to have any problem with it and the practical issues of making it an electable position would be an expensive complication considering the person appointed has already been through an election process.

This discussion was triggered by an argument relating to the UK, it was never clarified what the UK's level of democracy had to do with the EU's level of democracy, and their (the UK) decision to leave. It seems to be a discussion that is going round in pointless circles so I am away back to the main discussion.

Yellow_Fern

The majority of Irish alive today never had a chance to to vote on whether we should be in the EU. That is undemocratic. I am pro EU but let's be honest here.

Yellow_Fern

looksee wrote: »

We elect TDs - the people elect - then trust the resulting government to use those people as appropriate. It might be more relevant if you were arguing that the Taoiseach should be elected by the people. I am a good deal less than enthused that Mairead McGuinness is now Commissioner but the time for disputing that will be at the next election. If we were voting for a Commissioner would it be from a pool of basically anyone, or would it be an already elected TD?

This discussion is using the appointment of Commissioners as a basis for claiming there is an EU democratic deficit, it has already been well established in the thread that the EU is a democratic institution, certainly more so than the UK government.

Total whataboutery.

looksee wrote: »

We elect TDs - the people elect - then trust the resulting government to use those people as appropriate. It might be more relevant if you were arguing that the Taoiseach should be elected by the people. I am a good deal less than enthused that Mairead McGuinness is now Commissioner but the time for disputing that will be at the next election. If we were voting for a Commissioner would it be from a pool of basically anyone, or would it be an already elected TD?

It being democratic doesn't mean there isnt a democratic deficit.

looksee wrote: »

The other members don't seem to have any problem with it and the practical issues of making it an electable position would be an expensive complication considering the person appointed has already been through an election process.

There is no poll data to show that.

looksee

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

The majority of Irish alive today never had a chance to to vote on whether we should be in the EU. That is undemocratic. I am pro EU but let's be honest here.

The majority of Irish alive today didn't have a say in whether Ireland should be a Republic, is that undemocratic? Polls show that the vast majority of people in Ireland are happy to be in the EU, if that changes then will be the time to consider democracy in relation to the EU.

Sorry, I said I was going.

ArmaniJeanss

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

The majority of Irish alive today never had a chance to to vote on whether we should be in the EU. That is undemocratic. I am pro EU but let's be honest here.

There have been ample opportunities to vote for parties/individuals who had a policy of immediately withdrawing from the EU via Article 50, or holding a referendum on continued membership.

I'd estimate around 40 candidates had a policy in line with that in the February general election. They gained very few votes.

Yellow_Fern

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

There have been ample opportunities to vote for parties/individuals who had a policy of immediately withdrawing from the EU via Article 50, or holding a referendum on continued membership.

I'd estimate around 40 candidates had a policy in line with that in the February general election. They gained very few votes.

The general election isn't a plebiscite.

ArmaniJeanss

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

The general election isn't a plebiscite.

If anyone wants a plebiscite then vote for the parties/people who promise such, who in many cases made it their headline policy.
And vote against the parties who have definitely said no to such a referendum.

In the absence of such a vote, it doesn't seem to be an issue that bothers people.

View

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

The majority of Irish alive today never had a chance to to vote on whether we should be in the EU. That is undemocratic. I am pro EU but let's be honest here.

So?

We never had a referendum on leaving the U.K., much less ones since then on continuing not to be part of it or every other country.

Are you claiming that the existence of Ireland itself is undemocratic?