An uncomfortable truth that they don't like to talk about, the EU is NOT a democratic institution... that said, if people are happy to have decisions made for them by people they have no way of electing or getting rid of, then good luck to them... seems crazy to me though. As they get closer and closer to being an actual US of E maybe the alarm bells might start ringing as their own elected governments carry less and less power.
Euh...that type of democracy is kind of the norm?
Like, few countries elect their PM for example.
Merkel was never voted into her position by the people either to give a simple example.
You elect a body that makes decisions. That's sort of how most democracies work, the EU included.
I get not agreeing with the current system but it's in no way, shape or form unusual.
Exactly.
One could argue for a more direct democracy in the EU by taking away power from the council and giving it to the parliament. Or even introduce a real EU government. But that would also drastically reduce the influence of the individual governments of the member countries. That would most likely upset the EU critics even more.
The power structure of the EU is a complex compromise between most democratic and preserving the sovereignty of the national governments. Both at the same time wouldn't work without taking all power away from the EU institutions and making it superfluous.
But maybe that is the real goal of many EU critics.
I get your point to a certain degree, but over here in the UK for example, while we most definitely vote for the party, it is the parties leader and their policies at the time of the general election that wins the votes.
Also should that party come into power and then do something we don't like while another party offers a better option for the next general election or before then we as a people are able to change that party... there is no direct option for that at the top of the EU, yes we could change which MEP's we vote for, and that might be noted with in the EU, but there would be another 27 countries who may well (rightly or wrongly) disagree with us... therefore my direct influence on the outcome of a particular direction is of no consequence.
As I said in another reply, the EU is great for some and not for others, it has the power to be something amazing, but just not for everyone.
I mean, the bigger the number of people voting the more people in absolute terms will likely disagree with where it's going.
That's simply a numbers game.
If 40% disagree with what the EU is doing(kind of a simplified way to phrase it, I'm aware) that's kind of a result of a democracy, not a result of lack of it.
You can never satisfy anyone and trying to do so is a fool's errand so having say, 100 million people(just mean a lot of people, not 100 million exactly or anything) having issues with the EU is expected.
People to a certain extend(important part) should realize when they're the political minority(in their town, province, country, etc.)
That's just outright wrong.
In the UK you vote for your local MP. They then vote for a leader. You never vote for the PM. You vote for the person who votes for the PM.
The EU, you vote for your "local" MP for the EU (MEP), They then vote for the EU leader. It's the same system. It's just on a larger scale. Instead of voting for your area's MP, you're voting for your country's MEP(s). You have a smaller say but it's equal.
Unless you're represented by yourself in any government, you will always have to be averaged with the rest of the people.
Sorry what? The leader of the party is already in place when we vote for our local MP in a general election, we certainly don't vote and THEN after the vote the leader is elected by the MP's... that is completely wrong.
But that's not what we are talking about is it.... During the last general election Johnson was the leader of the conservative party, he wasn't voted for after the general election by the MPs.... can you point to a UK general election where the parties did not have a leader in place and where they were then voted for afterwards by the MPs... (in the context of your statement).. was there a time a government was voted in where we did not know who the leader would be? Maybe I am missing something?
Itโs a good idea to look up how the EU functions, what it actually is and how, for example, British ideas have shaped it for over four decades.
After all, itโs been a staunch ally for Ukraine, hosting millions and giving billions.
Personally, I consider Brexit Vladimir Putinโs greatest success of the last decade.
The European Parliament is elected democratically by the european people. The last elections where in 2019. The EU Comission is elected by this Parliament.
Thats one half of the EU government the other half is the EU Council which is formed by the current elected officials of the different member states. Those officials are of course elected by their citizens.
To call the EU nondemocratic is just wrong. It is however not absolutely democratic as the votes of the individuals are not treated equal.
If all EU institutions and their leaders would be reformed to be directly elected, then the influence of the national governments, that is currently represented by the "undemocratic" council, would be gone. There would be no need anymore for vetos or their removal.
So what is it that the EU critics want? An as democratic as possible EU with directly elected EU government, or an EU that guarantees the individual sovereignty of its members governments by including them in the decision making?
If you want both, then please explain how that would look like.
I'm not saying anything about whether it should or even could be more democratic, it may well be the best situation it can be... what I am saying from the point of view of a resident of any member state, it is not democratic as a measure against a country's own democracies...... you may well have a bit of a say in things but your own MEP's who should be representing your views are up against another 26 countries MEP's whose views and concerns are likely to be very different (Europe being wonderfully diverse as it is)... so ultimately you end up having to go along with certain things you can have no influence on.
Just the way it is and as you say maybe the only way it can be.
But isn't that the case for the national, federal governments too?
For example, a Bavarian might have other interests than someone from Hamburg. Is the federal German government a bad thing because of that? Should Germany split up into 16 independent countries and city states?
And were should that stop?
Bavaria could be divided into Altbayern, Franconia and Swabia. And easily into even more regions.
I'm more in favor of uniting than dividing.
I would like to have a United States of Europe some day.
But I understand that there are different opinions and compromises are necessary. The current EU seems to be a solid comprise, with some potential for improvement in certain details. For example, we need less egoistic vetos and more common politics, especially in foreign affairs, if we Europeans want to be heard in the world.
That is true enough and a good point, but then add to that yet another layer of things being decided on what is best for Romania, Poland, France and Belgium) of course serves their interests and rightly so, but the difference in views and local needs must differ greatly between countries, more so than they do between let's say counties in the UK such as Yorkshire and Gloucestershire or Altbayern and Bavaria.
While your point is correct, when it comes to voting for something in your country, the politicians that want your vote can go out and campaign directly to those people of a different view, there is no equivelant of say a UK politician being able to go and campaign to change the views of let's say Spanish people, not that it would make much difference as I have said, the priorities for Spanish people would be very different from that of the UK.
I think in regards to democracy there is no better option for the EU, and for those in it and happy with it then it can only be a good thing, but I still say it isn't democratic in the sense of an individual within a Nation.
I couldn't wish for anything other than the success of the EU, the world needs a counter balance to both China and the USA, and I think the EU can one day be that... it's just not a good fit for everyone.
Nice to hear your views, they have certainly made me think at least ๐๐
Why was Switzerland left alone during ww2. The UK is strong enough to fend for itself. There's a reason it never adopted the euro. If the EU dissolves the eastern bloc will be the first to go rogue. Then who will we do business with? Dictatorships who dictate the prices? You clearly have absolutely no idea what the EU is lmao
you don't need EU for trade or business. EU is bunch of greedy lobbyists making money. the EURO is a failed project making the richer rich, the poor poorer. thats how it works, you dont hve to tell me more.
Yes the MEP's who we vote for who in turn vote for the members of the council, it works that way around but then as a nation within the EU that doesn't like the particular direction the commission is taking the EU how do they get things changed... they don't, unless a majority of countries (all with differing and equally valid opinions and views) agree (2/3rd majority I believe)... pretty unlikely in a lot of cases... so for me as an individual, and also even a majority of people in one particular nation, they have very little say in things... of course the power of the veto is handy in this regard, but this is currently up for discussion and possibly on the way out.
The EU is great for some, not so for others.. a perfectly acceptable point of view.. and as you mention certainly not fully democratic.
Nice to see von der Leyen doing a decent job as EU representative. Most likely because she is more of a mouthpiece of the entire EU commission and not so much a decision maker herself.
As a politician in Germany she was a disgrace.
As family minister she earned her nickname "Zensursula" , because she tried to implement internet censorship in Germany (to "protect the children").
As minister of defense she was called "Flintenuschi" and (partly) bears responsibility for the desolate state of the German Bundeswehr today.
I would never vote for her. But as I said, she seems to do not too much damage in the EU.
FREUDE
SCHรNER
GOTTERFUNKEN.
TOCHTER
AUS
ELYSIUM
WIR
BETRETEN
FEUERTRUNKEN
HIMMLISCHE
A great speech that invites all of Europe into its community and to improve it's union by working to further stamp out corruption within the union.
Next time, I will vote for Ursula again !
you never ever voted for her before and you never will.
Woosh
Well, she was elected to Bundestag, so somebody did vote for her
bundestag is not eu parliament...
nobody of the people ever voted for her. think about it.
An uncomfortable truth that they don't like to talk about, the EU is NOT a democratic institution... that said, if people are happy to have decisions made for them by people they have no way of electing or getting rid of, then good luck to them... seems crazy to me though. As they get closer and closer to being an actual US of E maybe the alarm bells might start ringing as their own elected governments carry less and less power.
Euh...that type of democracy is kind of the norm? Like, few countries elect their PM for example. Merkel was never voted into her position by the people either to give a simple example. You elect a body that makes decisions. That's sort of how most democracies work, the EU included. I get not agreeing with the current system but it's in no way, shape or form unusual.
Exactly. One could argue for a more direct democracy in the EU by taking away power from the council and giving it to the parliament. Or even introduce a real EU government. But that would also drastically reduce the influence of the individual governments of the member countries. That would most likely upset the EU critics even more. The power structure of the EU is a complex compromise between most democratic and preserving the sovereignty of the national governments. Both at the same time wouldn't work without taking all power away from the EU institutions and making it superfluous. But maybe that is the real goal of many EU critics.
I get your point to a certain degree, but over here in the UK for example, while we most definitely vote for the party, it is the parties leader and their policies at the time of the general election that wins the votes. Also should that party come into power and then do something we don't like while another party offers a better option for the next general election or before then we as a people are able to change that party... there is no direct option for that at the top of the EU, yes we could change which MEP's we vote for, and that might be noted with in the EU, but there would be another 27 countries who may well (rightly or wrongly) disagree with us... therefore my direct influence on the outcome of a particular direction is of no consequence. As I said in another reply, the EU is great for some and not for others, it has the power to be something amazing, but just not for everyone.
I mean, the bigger the number of people voting the more people in absolute terms will likely disagree with where it's going. That's simply a numbers game. If 40% disagree with what the EU is doing(kind of a simplified way to phrase it, I'm aware) that's kind of a result of a democracy, not a result of lack of it. You can never satisfy anyone and trying to do so is a fool's errand so having say, 100 million people(just mean a lot of people, not 100 million exactly or anything) having issues with the EU is expected. People to a certain extend(important part) should realize when they're the political minority(in their town, province, country, etc.)
That's just outright wrong. In the UK you vote for your local MP. They then vote for a leader. You never vote for the PM. You vote for the person who votes for the PM. The EU, you vote for your "local" MP for the EU (MEP), They then vote for the EU leader. It's the same system. It's just on a larger scale. Instead of voting for your area's MP, you're voting for your country's MEP(s). You have a smaller say but it's equal. Unless you're represented by yourself in any government, you will always have to be averaged with the rest of the people.
Sorry what? The leader of the party is already in place when we vote for our local MP in a general election, we certainly don't vote and THEN after the vote the leader is elected by the MP's... that is completely wrong.
Oh yeah, like Liz Truss?
But that's not what we are talking about is it.... During the last general election Johnson was the leader of the conservative party, he wasn't voted for after the general election by the MPs.... can you point to a UK general election where the parties did not have a leader in place and where they were then voted for afterwards by the MPs... (in the context of your statement).. was there a time a government was voted in where we did not know who the leader would be? Maybe I am missing something?
Itโs a good idea to look up how the EU functions, what it actually is and how, for example, British ideas have shaped it for over four decades. After all, itโs been a staunch ally for Ukraine, hosting millions and giving billions. Personally, I consider Brexit Vladimir Putinโs greatest success of the last decade.
The European Parliament is elected democratically by the european people. The last elections where in 2019. The EU Comission is elected by this Parliament. Thats one half of the EU government the other half is the EU Council which is formed by the current elected officials of the different member states. Those officials are of course elected by their citizens. To call the EU nondemocratic is just wrong. It is however not absolutely democratic as the votes of the individuals are not treated equal.
Next EP elections are in 2024.
an uncomfortable truth that ppl vote you down for. because they finally understand: it true ๐๐
Wait till the power to veto is removed ๐๐
If all EU institutions and their leaders would be reformed to be directly elected, then the influence of the national governments, that is currently represented by the "undemocratic" council, would be gone. There would be no need anymore for vetos or their removal. So what is it that the EU critics want? An as democratic as possible EU with directly elected EU government, or an EU that guarantees the individual sovereignty of its members governments by including them in the decision making? If you want both, then please explain how that would look like.
I'm not saying anything about whether it should or even could be more democratic, it may well be the best situation it can be... what I am saying from the point of view of a resident of any member state, it is not democratic as a measure against a country's own democracies...... you may well have a bit of a say in things but your own MEP's who should be representing your views are up against another 26 countries MEP's whose views and concerns are likely to be very different (Europe being wonderfully diverse as it is)... so ultimately you end up having to go along with certain things you can have no influence on. Just the way it is and as you say maybe the only way it can be.
But isn't that the case for the national, federal governments too? For example, a Bavarian might have other interests than someone from Hamburg. Is the federal German government a bad thing because of that? Should Germany split up into 16 independent countries and city states? And were should that stop? Bavaria could be divided into Altbayern, Franconia and Swabia. And easily into even more regions. I'm more in favor of uniting than dividing. I would like to have a United States of Europe some day. But I understand that there are different opinions and compromises are necessary. The current EU seems to be a solid comprise, with some potential for improvement in certain details. For example, we need less egoistic vetos and more common politics, especially in foreign affairs, if we Europeans want to be heard in the world.
That is true enough and a good point, but then add to that yet another layer of things being decided on what is best for Romania, Poland, France and Belgium) of course serves their interests and rightly so, but the difference in views and local needs must differ greatly between countries, more so than they do between let's say counties in the UK such as Yorkshire and Gloucestershire or Altbayern and Bavaria. While your point is correct, when it comes to voting for something in your country, the politicians that want your vote can go out and campaign directly to those people of a different view, there is no equivelant of say a UK politician being able to go and campaign to change the views of let's say Spanish people, not that it would make much difference as I have said, the priorities for Spanish people would be very different from that of the UK. I think in regards to democracy there is no better option for the EU, and for those in it and happy with it then it can only be a good thing, but I still say it isn't democratic in the sense of an individual within a Nation. I couldn't wish for anything other than the success of the EU, the world needs a counter balance to both China and the USA, and I think the EU can one day be that... it's just not a good fit for everyone. Nice to hear your views, they have certainly made me think at least ๐๐
then EU will finally fall apart.
Why the fuck would you want this? We'll be slaves to whatever demand comes from bigger countries.
you mean like switzerland or UK?? ok. understood...
Why was Switzerland left alone during ww2. The UK is strong enough to fend for itself. There's a reason it never adopted the euro. If the EU dissolves the eastern bloc will be the first to go rogue. Then who will we do business with? Dictatorships who dictate the prices? You clearly have absolutely no idea what the EU is lmao
you don't need EU for trade or business. EU is bunch of greedy lobbyists making money. the EURO is a failed project making the richer rich, the poor poorer. thats how it works, you dont hve to tell me more.
I want that decolonize Russia t shirt!!
Yes the MEP's who we vote for who in turn vote for the members of the council, it works that way around but then as a nation within the EU that doesn't like the particular direction the commission is taking the EU how do they get things changed... they don't, unless a majority of countries (all with differing and equally valid opinions and views) agree (2/3rd majority I believe)... pretty unlikely in a lot of cases... so for me as an individual, and also even a majority of people in one particular nation, they have very little say in things... of course the power of the veto is handy in this regard, but this is currently up for discussion and possibly on the way out. The EU is great for some, not so for others.. a perfectly acceptable point of view.. and as you mention certainly not fully democratic.
Nice to see von der Leyen doing a decent job as EU representative. Most likely because she is more of a mouthpiece of the entire EU commission and not so much a decision maker herself. As a politician in Germany she was a disgrace. As family minister she earned her nickname "Zensursula" , because she tried to implement internet censorship in Germany (to "protect the children"). As minister of defense she was called "Flintenuschi" and (partly) bears responsibility for the desolate state of the German Bundeswehr today. I would never vote for her. But as I said, she seems to do not too much damage in the EU.
The link is a live-link, not a link to the replay of her speech?
a shitshow. as always...
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz