Spoiler:so TL;DR: the EU commission can completely control the boundaries and direction of the EU parliament, the EU parliament has almost no power at all, the EU parliament has no real democratic ties to the commission whom propose (and utlimately usher in) the laws and the EU commission president will never be appointed via electoral discussion or consent based on its privacy and "all or nothing" ultimatum to such nations/MEPs. yes, they can reject laws proposed, but the commission doesn't need to propose laws for the parliament in the first place and can simply bring in directives instead of regulations, meaning they will only propose laws they believe they will succeed with. the EU parliament, also, will never have the ability to get rid of *any* laws - part of democracy is about being able to scrap old governments' laws, but the EU doesn't allow for this basic democratic element, and once a law is a law, then it is a law basically forever because the MEPs cant reverse a vote that the commission allowed them to hold.Showthe EU commission determines what the parliament can debate or vote on
it is illegal for the parliament to debate or propose laws that the EU commission has not allowed
the EU commission is not elected in any sense whatsoever, yet they essentially control what the EU parliament can do, and can use this to its complete advantage
the EU parliament, after 2008, can "formally" propose laws to the EU commission, but so can anybody in the world, technically - anybody on this forum can do this to the EU commission. the EU commission has absolutely no obligation to propose anything it doesn't want to
the EU commission is voted for by the EU parliament, but the EU parliament cannot propose their own candidates - they must either vote for the entirety of the commission and its head, or vote it down completely, making a vote against the commission's composition essentially pointless because such a parliament will never get the power to bring in its preferred candidate, so they might as well just get things over with and symbolically say yes to whoever it is that will lead the commission as a matter of good will and a lack of political obstruction to the EU as an organisation that such countries have signed themselves up for (either without a referendum or without one in the last 40 decades after many treaty changes that have turned the EU into an unrecognisable institution)
EU Parliament MEPs do not have an electoral or manifesto mandate to support this or that EU commission, or this or that EU commission president, because they have no power to propose or know who this president could or would be, and there is no point in saying that they will support somebody when there is ultimately no chance of this person being proposed in the first place as the commission appointment happens after that parliament is elected
if the EU commission doesn't have to do anything the MEPs want, and the council of ministers (in terms of treaty changes) only requires one country to veto a proposed constitutional amendment~ (for democratic changes), how will democratic accountability ever be advanced within the EU, firstly? and the bigger question: if you can completely justify the EU in terms of economics against all its problems (democracy, immigration, bad laws, etc) how undemocratic would the EU need to be for you to consider the economics to be secondary in their importance? if the EU was to become a united states of europe with national parliaments being like local councils (as regional governments in federal systems actually have far more power than national parliaments do at the moment!) tomorrow, would you still be telling me economics > democracy? how is the situation not already too bad? how much lower would the EU need to sink democratically for you to think "maybe this institution is illegitimate"? would you still be saying "it is legitimate" if it scrapped the (powerless) parliament but caused the UK to become technically wealthier based on this absence of local democracy? give me your thoughts because I find this absence of objectivity pretty confused in that it seems to set an ultimately arbitrary or principally non-existent value of democracy for the sake of slightly more money (argued) - this can surely extend infinitely without some kind of higher principle involved that favours democracy?
Remainers, how undemocratic would the EU have to be for you to stop supporting it? Watch
- Thread Starter
Last edited by sleepysnooze; 23-06-2016 at 04:17.
- 23-06-2016 04:14
- 23-06-2016 04:19
Remainers despise democracy. I was told that democracy is 'overrated' by a Remainer on this site yesterday.
- 23-06-2016 04:32
Can you tell us what the sources for your assertions are?
What are the "bad laws" you are objecting to?
If the Commission has powers, it is because the national governments, the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament has given it those powers. All of these bodies are democratically elected, in one way or another.
The UK government has similar powers in many cases. It can issue statutory instruments, without going to parliament to gain democratic approval. You never get to vote on whether laws are adopted or not, and potential governments only ever give you a bare outline of what their five year legislative plans are in their manifestos.
Offline18ReputationRep:TSR Group Staff
- TSR Group Staff
- 23-06-2016 10:12
I suppose if the EU decided to set up an unelected upper house comprised entirely of wealthy/successful people with no accountability whatsoever, added a catch-all veto and gave it to the eldest member of a single family who would then pass down that veto to their eldest child each generation, and switched from using proportional representation to first-past-the-post for all their elections. Then the EU might start to look "undemocratic".