Within the EU institutions it has long been recognised that there is a 'democratic deficit'.
However, like many problems in the EU it seems that nothing can be done to rectify it. (Another such problem is the seat of the European Parliament.)
The recent appointments at the top of the EU are a case in point.
In response to the prospect of Brexit and in the run-up to the European elections various videos were posted on Facebook, schooling people about the European institutions and how they work. The alleged misinformation by Brexiteers and others was being 'dispelled'.
Recent days have shown the reality of how the EU is actually governed. Four major appointments have been made: the President of the Commission, the President of the Council, the Chair of the European Parliament and the Head of the European Central Bank. In each case the appointments have been agreed behind closed doors and presented to the citizens of the European Union as a fait accompli. Formally, of course, these candidates have to be approved, but the process is a formality. There are no alternative candidates. There is no way for the voting public of the European Union to have its say. Indeed during the course of the recent elections to the European Parliament these candidates were not put forward or even named. In the case of the European Commission there was even a preliminary hustings for potential candidates - but the winner was not part of this process. The 'winners' will now occupy significant positions of power.
This is not democracy in any meaningful sense of the word.
Representative democracy involves an electorate scrutinising, electing, hold to account and potential removing from office members of parliament. These members sit in parliaments where debates take place, votes are taken, bills passed or otherwise. In some cases the members are subjected to press scrutiny. They have to answer questions. They can be recalled and, even if they aren't, they carry out their duties in the sure knowledge of another election in 4-5 years time. This urgency is even more apparent in the case of government ministers.
The EU institutions, in their present form, simply do not live up to this standard.
MEPs are elected with turnouts well below 50% by electorates who often have little idea who or what they are voting for. They then sit in a huge parliament numbering almost 800 members, debating motions about which the general public are largely ignorant, resulting in legislation which is mandatory throughout the EU.
The European Commission is even worse. Its members are unelected, very often consisting of national politicians who have resigned or reached the end of their 'shelf life' in their countries of origin. Their allegiance is not to the electorate so much as the European project per se. Just as they are co-opted by backroom deals, so they are unaccountable. There was at least one case of a mass resignation in 1999, however this was in response to a damning report, not something won by the EU electorate. The European Commission is the 'executive' arm of the EU, the European 'government'. In what meaningful sense can it be said that anyone in the United Kingdom or Germany or anywhere else for that matter, even the most devoted Europhile, voted to be governed by Ursula von der Leyen? How many people outside Germany even knew her name before her appointment was announced? (This is not a personal slight against the mother-of-seven and current Minister of Defence in Germany, but rather an objection to the way in which she has been appointed.)
Finally, there is the European Council. Now, unlike the previous two institutions, the Council is made up of ministers accountable to national parliaments and electorates. The European Council does, to an extent, reflect what remains of national sovereignty within the EU. However, an important position in the Council is the President, elected for a two-and-a-half-year term (renewable once). Since the treaty of Lisbon this position has been held by Herman Van Rompuy of Belgium, Donald Tusk of Poland (who during the Brexit negotiations famously assigned his UK colleagues a place in Dante's Inferno) and, most recently, Charles Michel of Belgium. Again, I am sure Charles Michel is a nice guy, but readers are invited to read up on the latter's political career. In my personal opinion, hardly a CV meriting appointment to the role of leader of a 500 million superstate.
What I cannot comprehend is why in the minds of tens of millions of Europeans this unwieldy, undemocratic, flawed juggernaut has become the object of quasi-messianic expectations. I treasure the postwar French-German friendship and am all for international friendship and cooperation. But this cannot be equated with what is a seemingly unstoppable rush towards greater and greater centralisation at the expense of democratic accountability and common sense combined with an almost total inability to learn from past mistakes or rectify identified problems.
Surely there must be a better way.
However, like many problems in the EU it seems that nothing can be done to rectify it. (Another such problem is the seat of the European Parliament.)
The recent appointments at the top of the EU are a case in point.
Recent days have shown the reality of how the EU is actually governed. Four major appointments have been made: the President of the Commission, the President of the Council, the Chair of the European Parliament and the Head of the European Central Bank. In each case the appointments have been agreed behind closed doors and presented to the citizens of the European Union as a fait accompli. Formally, of course, these candidates have to be approved, but the process is a formality. There are no alternative candidates. There is no way for the voting public of the European Union to have its say. Indeed during the course of the recent elections to the European Parliament these candidates were not put forward or even named. In the case of the European Commission there was even a preliminary hustings for potential candidates - but the winner was not part of this process. The 'winners' will now occupy significant positions of power.
This is not democracy in any meaningful sense of the word.
Representative democracy involves an electorate scrutinising, electing, hold to account and potential removing from office members of parliament. These members sit in parliaments where debates take place, votes are taken, bills passed or otherwise. In some cases the members are subjected to press scrutiny. They have to answer questions. They can be recalled and, even if they aren't, they carry out their duties in the sure knowledge of another election in 4-5 years time. This urgency is even more apparent in the case of government ministers.
The EU institutions, in their present form, simply do not live up to this standard.
MEPs are elected with turnouts well below 50% by electorates who often have little idea who or what they are voting for. They then sit in a huge parliament numbering almost 800 members, debating motions about which the general public are largely ignorant, resulting in legislation which is mandatory throughout the EU.
The European Commission is even worse. Its members are unelected, very often consisting of national politicians who have resigned or reached the end of their 'shelf life' in their countries of origin. Their allegiance is not to the electorate so much as the European project per se. Just as they are co-opted by backroom deals, so they are unaccountable. There was at least one case of a mass resignation in 1999, however this was in response to a damning report, not something won by the EU electorate. The European Commission is the 'executive' arm of the EU, the European 'government'. In what meaningful sense can it be said that anyone in the United Kingdom or Germany or anywhere else for that matter, even the most devoted Europhile, voted to be governed by Ursula von der Leyen? How many people outside Germany even knew her name before her appointment was announced? (This is not a personal slight against the mother-of-seven and current Minister of Defence in Germany, but rather an objection to the way in which she has been appointed.)
Finally, there is the European Council. Now, unlike the previous two institutions, the Council is made up of ministers accountable to national parliaments and electorates. The European Council does, to an extent, reflect what remains of national sovereignty within the EU. However, an important position in the Council is the President, elected for a two-and-a-half-year term (renewable once). Since the treaty of Lisbon this position has been held by Herman Van Rompuy of Belgium, Donald Tusk of Poland (who during the Brexit negotiations famously assigned his UK colleagues a place in Dante's Inferno) and, most recently, Charles Michel of Belgium. Again, I am sure Charles Michel is a nice guy, but readers are invited to read up on the latter's political career. In my personal opinion, hardly a CV meriting appointment to the role of leader of a 500 million superstate.
What I cannot comprehend is why in the minds of tens of millions of Europeans this unwieldy, undemocratic, flawed juggernaut has become the object of quasi-messianic expectations. I treasure the postwar French-German friendship and am all for international friendship and cooperation. But this cannot be equated with what is a seemingly unstoppable rush towards greater and greater centralisation at the expense of democratic accountability and common sense combined with an almost total inability to learn from past mistakes or rectify identified problems.
Surely there must be a better way.
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий