What does that even mean?
The EU doesn't need Finland's "vote". It's decided at the EU level.
The EU doesn't need Finland's "vote". It's decided at the EU level.
Austria (9.1M) and Estonia (1.4M) are also mentioned and if they all vote "No", that is a bit over 99M people which is only 22% of EU citizens. So not enough to prevent it passing. No idea where the rest of the EU bloc sits on Yes/No, I'm hoping it does *not* pass.
Quoting from the translation where they explain how it works:
"EU countries will vote on the proposal at the end of October. At that time, the proposal will go through, if it is not opposed by a number of countries representing a total of at least 35 percent of EU citizens."
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_Union_member_...
- Spain (caught using Pegasus spyware to spy their own politicians)
- Hungary (Orban has good dictator vibes)
- Cyprus
https://www.wired.com/story/europe-break-encryption-leaked-d...
In this case in the Council (of member states) of the European Union needs to pass with 55% of the member states agreeing and they need to have 65% of the EU population.
In addition, the (directly elected) European Parliament will need to pass the proposed directive with a simple majority.
So calling the "vote" unneeded is not true at all.
It's basically like the senate in the US, except the states are represented by ministers instead of elected senators.
It's also worth noting that the US Senate was originally not elected either. The transition to an elected Senate was triggered by two states individually deciding to elect their Senator, then the rest followed. The same could happen in the EU, which would make it much more democratic. And it would only take one country to make the first move.
> Since 1979, the Parliament has been directly elected every five years by the citizens of the European Union through universal suffrage.
Yes,the parliament exists. I have voted for members of it. It is the most democratic part of the EU. The rules give it much more influence than hereto. But it has problems.
1) The Council, which is not so democratic, can veto it
2) The parliament is huge, so each member has very limited influence
3) Because of 2) it has not succeeded in creating an EU 'public sphere' or 'demos'. The 'parties' are just agglomerations of national parties. When you think of EU politicians, who are the big names? They are a) national figures and , b) Commissioners. Rarely do parliamentarians become well known,and usually for some other reason (Eg Nigel Farage).
I stand by my statement that the EU would be much more democratic if the council were elected. Firstly, do you really think the US was not more democratic when the Senate became elected? Secondly, it would mean that there were 'big figures' that get elected at an EU level. That would get the pubic much more interested and that is a significant part of what it means to be democratic. It doesn't matter how democratic the rules are of nobody cares.
The commission is where we have the major lack of democracy currently. Not sure how to improve without a massive transfer of power to the Union (e.g. an elected president), but it’s a problem worth solving.
Formally, yes, the Council represents democratically elected governments, and obviously people have heard of their national politicians. But that doesn't mean it makes the EU democratic. Some things to think about:
- When was the last time, if ever, you considered voting against someone at your national level because of how they might vote in the EU council?
- How much do you hear about EU council votes in the media, vs national parliamentary votes? (the OP is relatively unusual IMO)
The Commission is definitely undemocratic. But it has less power than many believe. It has the right to make proposals, but no power over whether they get adopted. It's more of a civil service in many ways. In my view, the council is the structure that has the most power in the EU. And the national politicians who operate it are content that it remains avenue for back-room deals whose results they can blame on the Commission, rather than being accountable to an electorate.
Otherwise you could have the weird situation where the elected government and the elected council members work against each others because of mismatched voting cycles (or personalities).
That sounds like a recipe for legslative lockup.
In the end most fundamental EU "laws" need to be implemented into national law by the same government that is now sending its members to the council.
A similar system is in use her in Germany, where the state government send a representative to the upper house.
> Citizens are directly represented at Union level in the European Parliament.
> Member States are represented in the European Council by their Heads of State or Government and in the Council by their governments, themselves democratically accountable either to their national Parliaments, or to their citizens.
The council isn't exactly a 'Cabinet' right now - in fact, the Commission is more like a Cabinet than the council. Electing a commissioner would be another option, but the head of the commission can reject them, so it's not under the control of the member state.
> EU countries will vote on the proposal at the end of October. At that time, the proposal will go through, if it is not opposed by a number of countries representing a total of at least 35 percent of EU citizens.