Hacker News Reader

Comment by gillesjacobs | Hacker News Reader

> 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.

View on HN

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.

> 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.

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

> 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.

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.

> 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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com