[generic92034]

That stance ("ever been democratic") is a bit too strong for my taste. There are definitely issues with the EU parliament having no rights to propose laws or the amount of indirection between voters and some powerful institutions. But calling the EU not being democratic is going too far, in my eyes. Especially considering the setup as a confederation of sovereign countries, so the comparison to individual countries' systems is problematic.

[ThalesX]

> But calling the EU not being democratic is going too far

I'm an EU citizen. I have minimal saying in who our commissioner is and what members of the cabinet get chosen.

I have a vote which I give to whatever party. After that, the vote for commissioner is secret; I have no idea who voted for what. After that, the negociations for the cabinet are secret; I have no idea what the criteria are and what the plans are.

I'm not putting us in the bucket of non-democracy just yet but I don't feel it's that far.

[rbanffy]

> I have minimal saying in who our commissioner is and what members of the cabinet get chosen.

We get to vote for our country representatives, who then vote for the MEPs. I don't think there is any EU-wide rule that prevents the MEP nomination process from being open - that'd be country-specific legislation.

[ThalesX]

I'm not talking about MEPs. The commissioner is not a country representative, I'm talking about the head of the European Commission, miss Ursula von der Leyen as it currently stands.

There is no rule preventing it from being open, there is also no rule forcing it to being open.

[rbanffy]

Your MEPs could certainly propose that.

[hcfman]

In a democracy is it possible for a government to commit illegal things and get away with it simply by ignoring the complaints, filed police charges etc?

In a democracy the government as well are supposed to be accountable by the rule of law. As they are not it is a failed democracy.

[ajb]

Are you aware of the history of the US Senate? It had exactly the same problem. Senators were appointed by the political elite of each state.

But, once one or two states decided to elect their senator, it was game over. The other states gave up, and now all the senators are elected.

It's true that both the commission and (perhaps even more powerful) the council of ministers are not democratic. But this is in the hands of each individual country to change. And it's national level politicians who are currently the obstacle. All find it easier to blame the EU than to take responsibility for change. But if one country takes action to increase , even a small one, the public in the others will realise they all can.

[buildfocus]

Is this not similar to ministerial roles and civil servant positions in most governments? You don't vote for the commissioners directly, but your elected representative (leader of your government) does, and that's your path to express preferences & drive accountability. If you don't like the selection, take it up with them.

In the UK for example, the people elect members of parliament as their representatives, but MPs choose their party leaders, and the governing party leadership chooses its ministers without any public consultation or debate. What's the difference?

[ThalesX]

A big difference is that in my neck of the woods, each party or coalition needs to come up with a governing document where they sort of tell you what their priorities are for the next 5 years.

In the EU we find about it after we vote, after they discuss in secrecy.

[timrichard]

In the UK, politicians will often U-turn if they sense that a policy will make them unpopular and make the next election harder to fight. Governments can and do get punished on polling day every five years. Sunak paid for his unpopularity and the record of his government. Could any EU voters do anything about Ursula getting a second term? (and once again she was the only name on the ballot and then only just scraped through). The EU commission is not concerned with democratic accountability. Power is concentrated in the Commission and Council. There's a very weak link back to the electorate, but it's homeopathic democracy.

[buildfocus]

Again, this is not different to local democratic processes.

Voters typically cannot directly stop somebody being named leader of their party or given a specific role within government for multiple terms. If you dislike them, you pressure your elected representative to change that.

Almost all representative democracy is accountability through a representative, not directly through control of government internals & positions.

[timrichard]

Again, my point was that even though we only have one direct representative, the governing party as a whole will be punished in the next election if they become deeply unpopular. If your rulemakers are immune to voter displeasure, it isn't a healthy democracy. You said "if you dislike them, you pressure your elected representative to change that". If as an EU citizen you are angry with the performance and direction of Ursula and the Commission, there isn't a damn thing you can do about it.

[medstrom]

Is this different from your own government?

[ThalesX]

Yes, in that we find out what we voted for after the vote instead of before.

[generic92034]

So we are in complete agreement.

[diggan]

This is generally called "representative democracy" and is mostly what people talk about when they talk about "democracy" in public conversations. The alternative is "direct democracy" and while it exists (like in Switzerland), it isn't nearly as common, sadly.

But representative democracy still is democracy.

[fdfgyu]

This is not representative democracy. This is, at best, buffered representative democracy.

Arcane electoral rules make for weak representatives who gather power by making back room deals.

The real (but not constitutional) power lies in the commission that is appointed, not elected, and has been vacuuming power to itself in increasing amounts.

[gillesjacobs]

> But calling the EU not being democratic is going too far

Unelected commissioners draft laws, while elected MEPs rubber-stamp with barely any changes. The Council's backroom deals make smoke-filled rooms look transparent. Try explaining the Ordinary Legislative Procedure to the average voter - you can't.

And let's not forget the ritual of ignoring referendums that don't align with the "ever closer union" mantra. When lobbyists have more sway than citizens, you've got a problem. The EU is a masterclass in obfuscating accountability behind layers of bureaucracy. It's democracy laundering, plain and simple.

[generic92034]

The commissioners are not elected directly by the populace, just like ministers in any government I know of are not directly elected by the populace (and other powerful officials, too). The level of indirection is greater in a confederation of countries compared to a single country.

The MEP usually do not "rubber-stamp with barely any changes". There often is considerable change applied to the original proposals, by the MEP negotiating. What really is missing is the right to propose laws for the EP. But for that you would need to agree about a way tighter EU integration of the member countries, which currently seems highly unlikely in the given political climate.

Again, it is way easier organizing a democratic system in a single nation state than in a confederation of sovereign countries with sometimes very different national systems and views. And I am not saying that to brush over the democratic deficit of the current EU implementation, but just to acknowledge the level of difficulty.

[rbanffy]

> way tighter EU integration of the member countries, which currently seems highly unlikely in the given political climate.

A real shame, if you ask me. The EU is the crowning achievement of human politics, and a step for a single government representing every human being democratically, with equal rights across national borders.

Just to think the member countries never managed more than a couple decades without engaging in wars between them is a statement of the value of this organisation. Imperfect as it is, it has prevented countless avoidable deaths and brought unprecedented peace to its members.

[fdfgyu]

In a parliamentary democracy every minister has been elected to his seat in Parliament. Voters can literally fire the PM while giving the ruling party a majority.

Take Canada.

The PM - Papineau

The defence minister - Scarborough South West

Finance Minister - University - Rosedale

Even the Speaker, who stands for the Majesty, is a member of the House - Hull Aylmer.

While Cabinet members are, typically, given safe seats to run, cabinet members can and do lose their seat effectively ending their ministry.

In a strong presidential system, like the US, the "ministers" (i.e.secretaries) are not in fact elected. But, not only are they approved by Congress, but they serve on behalf and on the whim of the President who is elected.

The fount of executive authority is solely in the hands of the President, who merely delegates his authority (who have no power of their own) to the cabinet members and (except for the VP) can fire them at any time.

The President holds all the executive power and the voters pick him.

The EU commissioners are not elected and the Commission president is not elected

[generic92034]

> In a parliamentary democracy every minister has been elected to his seat in Parliament. Voters can literally fire the PM while giving the ruling party a majority.

In many (most?) of the democratic EU countries the voters cannot fire the PM/chancellor/etc. while keeping the ruling party in power. So, to have that expectation on EU level would be strange, as it is not typically realized in the constituents.

The EU commissioners and their president are nominated by the (often themselves indirectly) elected governments of the EU countries. That is a level of indirection too much for my taste, but it is still not undemocratic. But they have to be confirmed by the EP, which is elected directly.

One reason for that approach is that most possible candidates for the positions are completely unknown to the general populace in most EU countries. There is a lack of EU level political information and conscience in the EU. If the system has to be improved that is the point to start.

[gillesjacobs]

You hit upon the "locality principle of representative democracy": the more non-local elected representatives are in their excertion of power, the less oversight by the electorate. EU Law is seperated from the electorate by multiple layers: electorate > national parties > national parliament > national government > Council of the EU > European Parliament > European Commission > EU law

Each layer dilutes democratic input and accountability. By the time you reach EU law, the average voter's influence is homeopathic at best.

Localists would argue since a federation is highly non-local it shouldn't even be attempted because it leads inherently to non-representative centralisation of power.

This multi-layered separation explains why EU citizens feel disconnected from Brussels decision-making. It's a game of democratic telephone where the message gets garbled with each step and the centralist power machine inserts its own interests.

[generic92034]

> This multi-layered separation explains why EU citizens feel disconnected from Brussels decision-making. It's a game of democratic telephone where the message gets garbled with each step and the centralist power machine inserts its own interests.

I agree with the first sentence, but I do not think that this cannot be improved upon. For example, more direct news reporting from EU level events/decisions could help. If only good journalism was not such a rare occurrence these days.

Regarding the "centralist power machine" - that is no different anywhere, no matter the processes. Money talks and lobbies get their way, even if not always. Still, (flawed) democracy and rule of law are better than doing without.