Various voices on the Left have been saying that socialism will struggle to succeed while the institutions of the EU (Commission & Council) always side with Capital rather than people.
People aren’t kicking off everywhere because things are going so well for them.
Tell that to Winston Churchill, Ed Balls and Michael Portillo, and Amber Rudd too if she’s not very careful. I was in Oxford in the late 70’s and early 80’s when John Patten was MP. And then wasn’t. And Jim Callaghan was PM. And then wasn’t. None of them left because they felt like it.
VB
The point is that we elect a local representative, but the government is simply whichever party has the most seats. We don’t directly elect either the government or the PM.
Are you saying that ‘whichever party has the most seats’ doesn’t reflect (not perfectly, but to a pretty good extent) how many people vote for them ? And that people’s view of the party leader’s fitness to be PM isn’t a factor in the way they vote, and therefore in his/her chances of actually becoming PM ?
I agree that the degree of influence that voters have over decisions is a continuum, running from dictatorship at one end to having everything decided by referendum at the other. But I would argue that the election of governments in the UK and, for that matter, in most other states in the first world, is a great deal closer to the ‘democratic’ end of the continuum than is the case for decision making in the institutions of the EU.
The only elected element of the EU system is the parliament. Which is an expensive time-wasting joke.
VB
Having looked into how the EU structures and legislature works, you can level the accusation that they are arcane, although with such a large organisation it’s difficult to see how you’d do it otherwise unless it was the military. The NHS is similarly sized example of an arcane institution.
I came to the conclusion that it’s not undemocratic, though. There may be a perception of too many degrees of freedom removed but as coco said, the reality in the UK is not too much different.
People think it’s anti-democratic because they aren’t exposed to it daily, but mostly because of a long, concerted campaign by Boris Johnson (when he was covering Brussels in the Telegraph) and sections of the mainstream press, especially the Express which has been coming up with ludicrous headline about bananas etc. for years.
Democracy - A system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.
So you’re saying that the legislative and executive decisions of the EU are made by elected representatives ? I thought that the only elected (that’s ‘elected by the voters’) element was the parliament and that that was not able to initiate legislation. So if I want something done my elected representative isn’t in a position to bring it forward for action. How’s that democracy ?
VB
Yes, but that then appoints much of the rest; other than that it’s by member governments:
While there are clearly several layers, it is fundamentally as democratic as our system.
Precisely. Decisions are made by appointees.
If you believe that that system is democratic then we’re not going to agree about the meaning of ‘democratic’.
The EU system, via the parliament, appointed Jean-Claude Juncker in charge of what is, in practice (if not formally), its most powerful institution. This despite him being worryingly unsuited to the post*. Juncker has since called the parliament “ridiculous” (his word) so it’s not just me who thinks it’s hopeless.
The UK system, via the ballot box, prevented Jeremy Corbyn from becoming prime minister in 2017 despite the Tories’ apocalyptically bad record. This because he is clearly incapable of doing the job.
One of these was an effective democratic decision.
VB
*He has a very questionable record of frustrating EU attempts to clean up Luxembourg’s tax practices when he was its prime minister and it’s commonly suggested that he also has a significant alcohol problem accounting for his clearly ‘eccentric’ behaviour (yes, I know Churchill, Yeltsin etc were sometimes drunk in charge too).
What Mark and Adam said.
They are more similar than different, certainly not “deeply undemocratic”.
Notwithstanding an acknowledgement that it could be improved through reforms.
The HoL is fundamentally undemocratic, but provides useful checks and balances against the elected gov. Just because something is undemocratic doesn’t automatically make it unfit for purpose.
Of course. But there’s no hope of influencing it from the outside.
I agree that he is probably incapable of doing the job, but to be fair it’s not been proven. What has been proven is that Theresa May is manifestly incapable of doing the job, and yet despite not receiving a majority (in an election she called when she already had a majority), she was returned as PM. Is that really a better democracy than the EU?
Yes. The prospect of the voters removing May was not zero. The prospect of the voters removing Juncker was zero. The difference between zero and anything which isn’t zero is all the difference in the world.
VB
Labour MP for Ilford…
Oof, right in the feels.
Because JC reasons.
Some fine comments beneath his including the suggestion that Hamas, Hezbollah etc are likely to be more flexible than Theresa May. 
Yes despite the deal she has offered the HoC being overwhelmingly rejected she will now only continue to tighten her grip on her red lines until the very bitter end (and still refuse to budge) 
What is the point of her?
The problem with elections is that you then give the people you elect a mandate. Simply put, the EU would become a Federal State. It is not one and should not have direct elections for the people running it.
Juncker was elected by the whole European Parliament. May was elected (kinda) by Tory MPs. Both are elected by our elected representatives, but in the latter case only one party.
I think that the nomination system for EC President is deeply flawed, as it takes place behind closed doors. It is in desperate need of reform, but part of the problem is that direct election would lead to a much more important position, I think. If someone could claim the mandate of speaking for all of Europe’s people then it would go to their head. It’s not obvious how best to manage this.
Your point on the ability to remove them being zero/non-zero is flawed. We can’t remove May now. When there is an election we can. If a European election removes Juncker’s power base then he will not be re-elected. They can both be removed through democratic means.
