[weakened_malloc]

True but it's a step removed. The MEPs are directly voted in whilst the EC are not, they're "voted in" on account of "voted in" people assigning them to the EC.

I mean nobody argues that the FED governor is voted in, right? In reality a lot of people argue that they're unelected and yet making decisions that affect everyone.

[supermatt]

The European Commission represents the interests of the member states, while the European Parliament represent the interests of the citizens. NO LAW CAN PASS without the consent of the citizens directly elected representatives. There is no "pushing through".

If you don't like how you are represented at the commission, then blame your government. It is THEIR representative - not yours.

Also, don't forget that the commission as a whole needs to be approved by a vote at European Parliament - i.e. by the directly elected representatives.

[RobertoG]

No, the European Council is suppose to represent the interest of the member states. The European Commission is suppose to be the executive of the European Union. Translating to the USA system, it would be like saying that the White House is suppose to represent the USA states. No, It's suppose to represent the interest of Europe as an entity.

Any introduction to democracy explains that the power is separated in the executive, the legislative and the judicial.

The European Parliament is suppose to be the legislative body but can't initiate legislation.

The Commission is suppose to be the executive, but, somehow can also initiate legislation and is not elected directly by the citizens. And the council that, I suppose would be the equivalent to a senate, is not directly elected by the citizens.

And we could talk about how all the important decisions are done in the dark, or how, like in this case, when something is not 'correctly' voted, they just keep bringing it back until it pass, or how they have started to 'sanction' people without judicial supervision.

It's time to open the eyes, because this is not going to improve. The EU 'democracy' is a joke.

[supermatt]

No, this is a discussion about the "unelected" European Commission. I haven't mentioned the European Council because it is irrelevant.

The European Commission is formed of representatives of the individual states. They are NOT representatives of the citizens, other than by proxy.

YOUR government can request that THEIR representative raise or support legislation among the commission. If you have a problem with your countries representative at the commission then take that up with your government.

Proposals being "brought back" for discussion in some form is just a part of legislation. It happens EVERYWHERE - not just at the EU level.

Sanctions are proposed through the commission because it is a consensus of state government foreign policy.

How would YOU propose that the EU work to be "more democratic" - while also considering that your government needs to be involved and influential?

The whole idea with the current structure is that it "meets in the middle" between national sovereignty and citizen representation.

I agree it's not a perfect system, and there is certainly a lot of opportunity for positive change (I would like to have some process for parliament to request legislation from the council. I would like more transparency in what the commission does), but to dismiss it as "undemocratic" makes no sense and is just repeating an uniformed rhetoric.

[RobertoG]

The fact that you think that the Commission represent the states members instead of the interest of the European Union shows how mess up and contradictory the system is. The Council is the body that represent the state members.

You probably think that, because the commission is composed by representatives of every country, but they are "bound by their oath of office to represent the interest of the EU as a whole rather than their home state". That in itself is already contradictory. Those representatives are not elected officials but are the more powerful in the system.

The European Commission is the executive branch of the European Union. In not sane system, the executive branch is in charge of proposing legislation, because that make the all 'separation of powers' concept useless.

>>"How would YOU propose that the EU work to be "more democratic" - while also considering that your government needs to be involved and influential?"

Well, or you give the parliament real legislative and budgetary powers or all the system is a farce and you should dissolve it. If you want to keep the interest of individual countries in the process you need another chamber, elected by the people, that would represent the national interests.

Not only the system is undemocratic but it's winning power. The European Council can sanction you because doesn't like what you are saying without any judicial supervision. The budget is used to blackmail countries that don't agree with the commission views. Even the European Central Bank was used for blackmailing Greece in the Debt crisis of 2011. If that's democracy, the word democracy has not meaning anymore.

[supermatt]

So your proposal is to remove the input from the individual state governments and make it entirely citizen led?

Wouldn't that make it a government and remove the sovereignty of the individual states?

Not saying thats a bad idea - its just the exact opposite of the usual "undemocratic" rhetoric.

[RobertoG]

The EU could be just a bunch of agreements between countries about commerce and freedom of movement. The EU could be a federation of states with proper institutions. What the EU should not be is a superstructure over member countries without proper democratic control. And this is what is now and going worst by the day.

If you are interested in a federation, you could have an American bicameral model, with the senate representing the countries interest (1).

The current path of the EU is, in my opinion, very worrisome. The important issues are decided in close doors. The Commission and the Council feel that they can 'sanction' citizens without judicial supervision. The countries that not play along are blackmailed. The Commission officials feel that they can speak for all Europe when most citizens disagree with what they are saying. They feel that they can block the public discourse that they don't like, and now they want total control of our communications.

(1) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Congress

[vintermann]

An empty justification, since a state has no interest apart from its citizen's interests.

I hope you agree that elected representation isn't perfect - there is going to be disalignment, ways in which representatives resemble each other more than they resemble their voters.

This disalignment can only get amplified with every layer of indirect election. It never gets better.

[supermatt]

A states interests are long term and strategic. These aren't the same as an aggregation of citizens relatively short term interests, but should absolutely be influenced by them.

I totally agree with what you say about elected representation - but I am also thankful that decisions aren't made through direct democracy given that so many people are often dangerously uninformed and easily manipulated.

[indymike]

> An empty justification, since a state has no interest apart from its citizen's interests.

Sometimes a government only cares about a few citizens, or in some cases one citizen.

[coldtea]

>The European Commission represents the interests of the member states, while the European Parliament represent the interests of the citizens.

Both represent the interests of themselves, the unelected bureucracy, and the elites.

[3836293648]

This in standard in europe. Most places don't vote for their PM or President either, they're just the leader of the largest party in parliament and chosen by parliament

[baxtr]

Wait but the commission is assembled by the PMs / presidents… so it’s elected by people who were elected by people who elect.

[qwytw]

Generally a lot of people do vote for the PM i.e. chose the party to vote for based on it's leader(s)

[verisimi]

Oh, if unelected officials is the standard, that's fine then. Move along.

[markdown]

As it should be.

It's good that both the US Fed Reserve Governor and EC appointees didn't have win popularity contests to get there.

[weakened_malloc]

Eh in a way, I can see both sides of the coin. On one hand if Fed governors didn't have independence, the inflation rate would make Venezuela look like a bastion of economic management. On the other hand, you end up with situations like this where the EC can just keep trying to force in poor policy.

[qwytw]

The Fed has a pretty strict and narrow mandate and an even narrower toolset. They can't start coming up and imposing random laws and regulations (outside the banking sector) just because they want to...

[peyton]

Worth noting they have a strong incentive to grow payroll, which currently stands at 25,000-ish.

[DeathArrow]

You argue that people electing officials who make policies affecting those people is bad?

[markdown]

Very, very bad. Have you seen the quality of politicians today?