h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

If the European Parliament is the only directly elected body of the European Union, can the EU be called democratic?

I've always wondered that myself. In fact I was talking to it with someone the other day. He told me that apparantly the European Commission, which is made up of representatives from each European country, has just a bit more power than the Paliament, but cannot take action without their consent. I suppose that means the EU is not yet a democracy.

If the people of each country elect the heads of government, and this makes up the European Council, is that democracy?
From what I can tell the power of the EU is shared (more or less, depending on the issue at hand) between the three main institutions: The European Council, the European Parliament, and the European Commission. See A720181 about the commission.

Ahem...

There are of course, 3 institutions in the EU. The Commission, the Council and of course, the Parliament. Yes, the parliament is the only directly elected institution, but it has the power of veto over both the unelected institutions. The Commission is the only one that can change the balance of power, but cannnot do it without the parliaments consent. The Council has equal legislative power as the Parliament, but again, the Parliament has the power of veto.

Happy?



You'd better be.

Parliament has no legislative power. It's only a talking-shop. Sadly, the EU is undemocratic.

I'd like it's internal structure changed. Who's with me?

What worries me is how opaque it all *seems*. We only hear about the EU when they make some decision that upsets the Sun and the Mail. It's usually some nonsense about bananas - you all remember it.

So, why is there hardly any reporting from the EU parliament/commission/whatever? Is it because it's just too darn dull to report? Is it because the effects of any decisions made are tiny? Or are the reasons a bit darker....?

I agree, Gonzo, we don't get to hear enough about what the Commission gets up to.

Most of the stuff that gets reported in the papers is irrelevant or nit-picking. Ie the "Metric Martyrs" - believe it or not you are allowed to sell in pounds and ounces as long as you display in kilos and grams as well. Anyway, it's a global market-place and it's silly to assume the UK can work in pounds and ounces whilst our major trading partners work in kilos and grams. That's globalisation, not "dictats from Brussels".

No, the important things are the EU's power over sovereign governments (I, along with most citizens in EU countries have no idea what these amount to), the powers of the European central bank, the influence of European Big Business over the unelected commission, the EU's "foreign" policy, how the Commission is elected, what exactly the elected Parliament can actually do and how much this ineffectual body actually costs. The list is a long one.

These are the important issues regarding the EU. Not "bendy bananas" and all the rubbish that appears in the newspapers.

Agreed, the EU itself is a good idea, the only problem that I see is how little control citizens actually have over it. I've always found it rather strange that the EU can have a foreign policy, especially because it isn't officially a nation.

I think the EU's "foreign policy" is basically issues that the member states agree on being put forward on their behalf by one person. As I said above, however, I have no idea what these policies usually are and how they are decided on.

The Mirror and the Sun, though quality newspapers I'm sure they are, are not the place to read about politics. Reports that I have read in them have different views of the facts then other papers, and often ommit important facts. (I'm not saying they lie. But they do sensationalize) Papers that I have found in England that often mention what the EU tend to be the FT and Guardian among others. The good place to find out exactly what the EU are up to before they come out with straight apples, is the internet. The BBC news page is my favourite source of news on the web. You can find out all sorts of weird and wonderful things there.

Zegreb, keeper of zeppelins, the parliament does seem to have some power on deciding legislation, just not much. I agree that if we are electing them, then they should, in theory have more say. Also from what I can see, the European Commission isn't elected, it's appointed. See: A720181

A question that has been bothering me is that if we, the people elect the leaders of our governments, and these leaders help make up the European Council, then is that democracy? Most of us don't vote for these leaders on the issue of what they will do in the EU as much as we vote for them on how much they promise to lower taxes. Are they then representing the people?

Small point of information - we don't elect our leaders, only the people in the constituency of that leader have that privilege.

Woodpigeon: can you explain agian. I don't understand what you mean.

thanks in advance

Hi Ray,

Normally in the UK and Ireland, when it comes to election time, the leader of the party is elected to parliament only by winning the vote contest his/her own constituency. Tony Blair is the MP for Sedgefield, so therefore the only "ordinary" people who vote for Tony Blair in the UK are the people of Sedgefield.

Even then, it's not up to the people of Sedgefield whether Tony will be leader of the country. That's a decision made by members of the Labour party. (I am not sure whether common labour party members have a say in Tony's election as leader, or whether it is only a smaller group within the Labour party that have this right - does anyone know?).

In the US, the election of leader of the country is made by a straight vote to the people. Everybody had the option of directly voting for their president. This option is not available to voters in the UK or Ireland. I am not making a value judgement as to what system is better, British or US, just making the point that British citizens in the most part do not elect their leader.

Woodpigeon

The leaders of the UK political parties are generally elected by the party members.

The US president is apparently actually elected by the Electoral College. The popular vote does not result in the direct election of the President, it ensures that the people get to have their say.

Madent, is that every member in the party, or just a sub-set - delegates, special committees etc? Also, the Electoral College in the US can't really vote in practice against the wishes of its own electorate, AFAIK.

>> the people elect the leaders of our governments, and these leaders help make up the European Council, then is that democracy?
I think the European Council is democratic and a necessary instituation if we are to still see the EU as representing the interests of the individual member states. If it were not there, the needs of individual member states could be more easily overruled, particularly by groupings of the bigger states, which is not really a vision of Europe that I particularly buy in to. I think the issue is that the Commission is composed of political appointees, rather than coming from the most competent members of the European Parliament, which would be in my opinion a better, and more democratic approach overall.

AFAIK every registered party member gets a vote when a leader is elected. The candidates must all be members of parliament in the House of Commons (roughly equivalent to congress in the US). Also, there are usually some pre-selection steps to limit the number of candidates in the "popular" vote. But I'm not sure if the Labour party still allows block votes by unions in leadership elections.

On the Electoral College, there have been a couple of times when the vote has gone against the popular vote; the last election is one example.

In Europe the parliament is democratically elected by the whole electorate, but seems relegated to a secondary role in the EU. The commission is appointed, as is the president of the commission, but these are the bits that seem to get all the coverage in the media and are the face of european government. However the council seems to be where all the meaningful work gets done (enlargement, currency, foreign politics, trade agreements, etc.).

On the whole though the structure might not be too bad.

The council is the various heads of state, with votes proportional to population of the country they represent. The commission works more like a watchdog ensuring that the balance of power is maintained, legislation enforced and that things work roughly in line with council goals. The parliament is then the legislative heart of the EU.

Given that each member state still has a large degree of autonomy, I think that the commission is probably better off appointed.

Ultimately though if a federal Europe occurs, there will need to be some considerable changes in the structure of European and member governments to create something that works.

What would then happen to say the UK monarchy?

The common agricultural policy would need to be changed substantially. Defence structures would inevitably change with the European task force becoming the European Armed Forces. National armies would cease to exist although some elements of national identity in those forces might be maintained.

I'm rambling, but it's a complex situation.

In answer to the original question, yes and no. Major chunks are democratic. The balance is not but is appointed by democratically elected governments.

>>> On the Electoral College, there have been a couple of times when the vote has gone against the popular vote; the last election is one example.
Yes, you are right - what I meant was that if the majority in a state, say Delaware, voted Bush, then the electoral college representative was likely to vote Bush, and not very likely at all to vote Gore.

>>>The council is the various heads of state, with votes proportional to population of the country they represent.
Are you sure? I thought that they had 1 vote, 1 member state. I might be wrong, mind you...

>>>Given that each member state still has a large degree of autonomy, I think that the commission is probably better off appointed.
I would prefer to see state autonomy issues being left to the council, and to get the commissioners to properly represent the whole community. Currently each individual commissioner has a particular allegiance to a member-state government, because it was this government that appointed him/her in the first place. Also, due to enlargement this process is going to get very unweildy very soon. They should be elected by the Parliament, and if they do a crap job, they should be kicked out by the Parliament.

Voting in the European Council is as follows:

"The threshold for qualified majority voting is 62 votes out of 87 (71% of all votes). The votes of the Member States are weighted according to population and adjusted in favour of the less populous countries in the following way: Germany, France, Italy and the UK have 10 votes; Spain has 8; Belgium, Greece, the Netherlands and Portugal have 5; Austria and Sweden 4; Denmark, Ireland and Finland 3; Luxembourg 2."

Taken from http://europa.eu.int/institutions/council/index_en.htm

I guess the weighting means than Ireland with a population of only 4 million has relatively more votes (3) compared to the UK with a population of 60 million and only 10 votes.

Yes, that is what it appears to say. It's a kind of half-way house between 1 state 1 vote, and votes purely on a population basis. Thanks Madent.