I always thought the Speaker's role was simply that of a chairman of the

[Burney]

I'd have to understand the specifics of how the executive overturned the popular votes; I'm willing to bet it is more complicated then you are suggesting.

BTW, the article below suggests that your portrayal of the lack of democracy within the EU is superficial, and with all due respect mate, I'm inclined to believe the chap who wrote it. It has never made sense to me that the EU countries would accept an EU that was as undemocratic as you and Burney portray it to be, and the article below makes it clear that it is not.

A popular claim by many supporters of the Leave campaign is that the EU is run by ‘unelected bureaucrats’. How much truth is there behind that claim?

This claim mainly refers to the EU Commission: the EU’s executive body. It is true that the Commission President and the individual Commissioners are not directly elected by the peoples of Europe. So, in that sense, we cannot “throw the scoundrels out”. It is also true that under the provisions of the EU treaty, the Commission has the sole right to propose EU legislation, which, if passed, is then binding on all the EU member states and the citizens of these member states.

But, that’s not the end of the story. First, the Commission’s power to propose legislation is much weaker than it at first seems. The Commission can only propose laws in those areas where the EU governments have unanimously agreed to allow it to do under the EU treaty. Put another way, the Commission can only propose EU laws in areas where the UK government and the House of Commons has allowed it to do so.


Jean-Claude Juncker. Credits: Friends of Europe.

Also, ‘proposing’ is not the same as ‘deciding’. A Commission proposal only becomes law if it is approved by both a qualified-majority in the EU Council (unanimity in many sensitive areas) and a simple majority in the European Parliament. In practice this means that after the amendments adopted by the governments and the MEPs, the legislation usually looks very different to what the Commission originally proposed. In this sense, the Commission is much weaker than it was in the 1980s, when it was harder to amend its proposals in the Council and when the European Parliament did not have amendment and veto power.

Part of the misunderstanding about the power of the Commission perhaps stems from a comparison with the British system of government. Unlike the British government, which commands a majority in the House of Commons, the Commission does not command an in-built majority in the EU Council or the European Parliament, and so has to build a coalition issue-by-issue. This puts the Commission in a much weaker position in the EU system than the British government in the UK system.

Second, the Commission President and the Commissioners are indirectly elected. Under Article 17 of the EU treaty, as amended by the Lisbon Treaty, the Commission President is formally proposed by the European Council (the 28 heads of government of the EU member states), by a qualified-majority vote, and is then ‘elected’ by a majority vote in the European Parliament. In an effort to inject a bit more democracy into this process, the main European party families proposed rival candidates for the Commission President before the 2014 European Parliament elections. Then, after the centre-right European People’s Party (EPP) won the most seats in the new Parliament, the European Council agreed to propose the EPP’s candidate: Jean-Claude Juncker.

The problem in Britain, though, is that this new way of ‘electing’ the Commission President did not feel very democratic. None of the main British parties are in the EPP (the Conservatives left the EPP in 2009), and so British voters were not able to vote for Juncker (although they could vote against him). There was also very little media coverage in the UK of the campaigns between the various candidates for the Commission President, so few British people understand how the process worked (unlike in some other member states). But, we can hardly blame the EU for the Conservatives leaving the EPP or for our media failing to cover the Commission President election campaign!

Then, once the Commission President is chosen, each EU member state nominates a Commissioner, and each Commissioner is then subject to a hearing in one of the committees of the European Parliament (modelled on US Senate hearings of US Presidential nominees to the US cabinet). If a committee issues a ‘negative opinion’ the candidate is usually withdrawn by the government concerned. After the hearings, the team of 28 is then subject to an up/down ‘investiture vote’ by a simple majority of the MEPs.

Finally, once invested, the Commission as a whole can be removed by a two-thirds ‘censure vote’ in the European Parliament. This has never happened before, but in 1999 the Santer Commission resigned before a censure vote was due to be taken which they were likely to lose. So, yes, the Commission is not directly elected. But it is not strictly true to say that it is ‘unelected’ or unaccountable.

And, in many ways, the way the Commission is now chosen is similar to the way the UK government is formed. Neither the British Prime Minister nor the British cabinet are ‘directly elected’. Formally, in House of Commons elections, we do not vote on the choice for the Prime Minister, but rather vote for individual MPs from different parties. Then, by convention, the Queen chooses the leader of the largest party in the House of Commons to form a government. This is rather like the European Council choosing the candidate of the political group with the most seats in the European Parliament to become the Commission President.

Then, after the Prime Minister is chosen, he or she is free to choose his or her cabinet ministers. There are no hearings of individual ministerial nominees before committees of the House of Commons, and there is no formal investiture vote in the government as a whole. From this perspective, the Commissioners and the Commission are more scrutinised and more accountable than British cabinet ministers.

So, it is easy to claim that the EU is run by ‘unelected bureaucrats’, but the reality is quite a long way from that. Although, having said that, I would be one of the first to acknowledge that the EU does not feel as democratic as it could or should be – as I have spent much of my academic career writing about this issue. But, this is perhaps more to do with the stage of development of the EU than because of the procedures that are now in place for choosing and removing the Commission, which are far more ‘democratic’ than they were 5 or 10 years ago.

Hmmm. Oh, yes, I'd definitely trust - *checks notes* - 'Friends of Europe' - very impartial.

It's a classic piece of sophistry whose sole intent is to obscure the truth.
For starters, the premises of the piece are absurdly flawed. For instance, it's laughable to compare a government that has won an election (and thus has a direct democratic mandate) and a patronage-appointed Commission that has no democratic mandate whatsoever. The issue therefore is not that the Commission has less power than an elected national government, but that it has any power at all!

The Commission's very existence is an offence to any democrat's sensibilities. It is the sole body that is capable of proposing legislation. That gives it pretty much complete power over the legislative agenda of the EU with no democratic mandate whatsoever. No amount of quasi-democratic window dressing can obscure that stark fact.

Secondly, the nonsense about the cabinet and PM not being directly elected wilfully ignores that they are all elected in a national election in which the electorate voted largely by party and in response to clear manifestos. None of that is the case with the Commission, which is an appointment with zero democratic legitimacy.

All in all, that article is nothing but an example of how dishonest the proponents of the EU are prepared to be in defence of the indefensible and how willing others are to lie to themselves that their self-interest in maintaining the status quo has any higher justification.

[redgunamo]

Yes. To be honest, I'd be rather more inclined to believe A & B on this topic. At least, I don't think either of them were at LSE.

I'd have to understand the specifics of how the executive overturned the popular votes; I'm willing to bet it is more complicated then you are suggesting.

BTW, the article below suggests that your portrayal of the lack of democracy within the EU is superficial, and with all due respect mate, I'm inclined to believe the chap who wrote it. It has never made sense to me that the EU countries would accept an EU that was as undemocratic as you and Burney portray it to be, and the article below makes it clear that it is not.

A popular claim by many supporters of the Leave campaign is that the EU is run by ‘unelected bureaucrats’. How much truth is there behind that claim?

This claim mainly refers to the EU Commission: the EU’s executive body. It is true that the Commission President and the individual Commissioners are not directly elected by the peoples of Europe. So, in that sense, we cannot “throw the scoundrels out”. It is also true that under the provisions of the EU treaty, the Commission has the sole right to propose EU legislation, which, if passed, is then binding on all the EU member states and the citizens of these member states.

But, that’s not the end of the story. First, the Commission’s power to propose legislation is much weaker than it at first seems. The Commission can only propose laws in those areas where the EU governments have unanimously agreed to allow it to do under the EU treaty. Put another way, the Commission can only propose EU laws in areas where the UK government and the House of Commons has allowed it to do so.


Jean-Claude Juncker. Credits: Friends of Europe.

Also, ‘proposing’ is not the same as ‘deciding’. A Commission proposal only becomes law if it is approved by both a qualified-majority in the EU Council (unanimity in many sensitive areas) and a simple majority in the European Parliament. In practice this means that after the amendments adopted by the governments and the MEPs, the legislation usually looks very different to what the Commission originally proposed. In this sense, the Commission is much weaker than it was in the 1980s, when it was harder to amend its proposals in the Council and when the European Parliament did not have amendment and veto power.

Part of the misunderstanding about the power of the Commission perhaps stems from a comparison with the British system of government. Unlike the British government, which commands a majority in the House of Commons, the Commission does not command an in-built majority in the EU Council or the European Parliament, and so has to build a coalition issue-by-issue. This puts the Commission in a much weaker position in the EU system than the British government in the UK system.

Second, the Commission President and the Commissioners are indirectly elected. Under Article 17 of the EU treaty, as amended by the Lisbon Treaty, the Commission President is formally proposed by the European Council (the 28 heads of government of the EU member states), by a qualified-majority vote, and is then ‘elected’ by a majority vote in the European Parliament. In an effort to inject a bit more democracy into this process, the main European party families proposed rival candidates for the Commission President before the 2014 European Parliament elections. Then, after the centre-right European People’s Party (EPP) won the most seats in the new Parliament, the European Council agreed to propose the EPP’s candidate: Jean-Claude Juncker.

The problem in Britain, though, is that this new way of ‘electing’ the Commission President did not feel very democratic. None of the main British parties are in the EPP (the Conservatives left the EPP in 2009), and so British voters were not able to vote for Juncker (although they could vote against him). There was also very little media coverage in the UK of the campaigns between the various candidates for the Commission President, so few British people understand how the process worked (unlike in some other member states). But, we can hardly blame the EU for the Conservatives leaving the EPP or for our media failing to cover the Commission President election campaign!

Then, once the Commission President is chosen, each EU member state nominates a Commissioner, and each Commissioner is then subject to a hearing in one of the committees of the European Parliament (modelled on US Senate hearings of US Presidential nominees to the US cabinet). If a committee issues a ‘negative opinion’ the candidate is usually withdrawn by the government concerned. After the hearings, the team of 28 is then subject to an up/down ‘investiture vote’ by a simple majority of the MEPs.

Finally, once invested, the Commission as a whole can be removed by a two-thirds ‘censure vote’ in the European Parliament. This has never happened before, but in 1999 the Santer Commission resigned before a censure vote was due to be taken which they were likely to lose. So, yes, the Commission is not directly elected. But it is not strictly true to say that it is ‘unelected’ or unaccountable.

And, in many ways, the way the Commission is now chosen is similar to the way the UK government is formed. Neither the British Prime Minister nor the British cabinet are ‘directly elected’. Formally, in House of Commons elections, we do not vote on the choice for the Prime Minister, but rather vote for individual MPs from different parties. Then, by convention, the Queen chooses the leader of the largest party in the House of Commons to form a government. This is rather like the European Council choosing the candidate of the political group with the most seats in the European Parliament to become the Commission President.

Then, after the Prime Minister is chosen, he or she is free to choose his or her cabinet ministers. There are no hearings of individual ministerial nominees before committees of the House of Commons, and there is no formal investiture vote in the government as a whole. From this perspective, the Commissioners and the Commission are more scrutinised and more accountable than British cabinet ministers.

So, it is easy to claim that the EU is run by ‘unelected bureaucrats’, but the reality is quite a long way from that. Although, having said that, I would be one of the first to acknowledge that the EU does not feel as democratic as it could or should be – as I have spent much of my academic career writing about this issue. But, this is perhaps more to do with the stage of development of the EU than because of the procedures that are now in place for choosing and removing the Commission, which are far more ‘democratic’ than they were 5 or 10 years ago.

[WES]

Hmmm. Oh, yes, I'd definitely trust - *checks notes* - 'Friends of Europe' - very impartial.

It's a classic piece of sophistry whose sole intent is to obscure the truth.
For starters, the premises of the piece are absurdly flawed. For instance, it's laughable to compare a government that has won an election (and thus has a direct democratic mandate) and a patronage-appointed Commission that has no democratic mandate whatsoever. The issue therefore is not that the Commission has less power than an elected national government, but that it has any power at all!

The Commission's very existence is an offence to any democrat's sensibilities. It is the sole body that is capable of proposing legislation. That gives it pretty much complete power over the legislative agenda of the EU with no democratic mandate whatsoever. No amount of quasi-democratic window dressing can obscure that stark fact.

Secondly, the nonsense about the cabinet and PM not being directly elected wilfully ignores that they are all elected in a national election in which the electorate voted largely by party and in response to clear manifestos. None of that is the case with the Commission, which is an appointment with zero democratic legitimacy.

All in all, that article is nothing but an example of how dishonest the proponents of the EU are prepared to be in defence of the indefensible and how willing others are to lie to themselves that their self-interest in maintaining the status quo has any higher justification.

Ad hominem

And you have refuted very little of the article including some points that directly contradict the 'undemocratic' view. As an example:

'The Commission can only propose laws in those areas where the EU governments have unanimously agreed to allow it to do under the EU treaty. Put another way, the Commission can only propose EU laws in areas where the UK government and the House of Commons has allowed it to do so.'

[Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult]

Yes. To be honest, I'd be rather more inclined to believe A & B on this topic. At least, I don't think either of them were at LSE.

I was. B.Sc (econ) in Monetary Economics.

Have you any idea how tedious it is explaining to Corbynistas that they don't have the first ****ing clue about economics and that by definition, they guy who introduced the minimum wage can't be described as a "neo-liberal."

[IUFG]

I was. B.Sc (econ) in Monetary Economics.

Have you any idea how tedious it is explaining to Corbynistas that they don't have the first ****ing clue about economics and that by definition, they guy who introduced the minimum wage can't be described as a "neo-liberal."

The NMW / NLW - now there was a tool to fúck up the lower end of the labour market.

Instead of prescribing the rate of pay why didn't they incentivise companies, through tax breaks, to pay their staff more?
Of course, the public sector pay their staff higher than NMW / NLW levels and they contract out the lower paid, 'dirty side' of things to private companies.

The NMW / NLW has become completely stigmatised. And to get to the promised land of the NLW at £9/hr by 2020 is going to require a near 10% increase next year.

That, my friends, will have a significant economic impact not only through those at the bottom getting a signifiant rise but maintaining differentials with those paid slightly above the NMW / NLW.

Who'da thunk politics and economics had an effect on each other..?

[Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult]

The NMW / NLW - now there was a tool to fúck up the lower end of the labour market.

Instead of prescribing the rate of pay why didn't they incentivise companies, through tax breaks, to pay their staff more?
Of course, the public sector pay their staff higher than NMW / NLW levels and they contract out the lower paid, 'dirty side' of things to private companies.

The NMW / NLW has become completely stigmatised. And to get to the promised land of the NLW at £9/hr by 2020 is going to require a near 10% increase next year.

That, my friends, will have a significant economic impact not only through those at the bottom getting a signifiant rise but maintaining differentials with those paid slightly above the NMW / NLW.

Who'da thunk politics and economics had an effect on each other..?

I agree with much of that. But as I say, try explaining to a Corbynista that a law that prevents the supply and demand of labour setting the price (wage) by creating an artificial minimum is the very antithesis of neo-liberalism. I swear to God, some of them think it means invading the Middle East.

I pulled one up on the Graun for using the term neo-liberalism once, and he replied: "Ok. Well, capitalism then." It's a nightmare when all your mates who are political are ignorant lefties. They mean well, of course, that's why people become lefties. But they don't like it when you explain that what they've picked up from the internet is one-sided at best and often downright inaccurate. This is why I generally avoid social media (he says on a message board.)

[Burney]

Ad hominem

And you have refuted very little of the article including some points that directly contradict the 'undemocratic' view. As an example:

'The Commission can only propose laws in those areas where the EU governments have unanimously agreed to allow it to do under the EU treaty. Put another way, the Commission can only propose EU laws in areas where the UK government and the House of Commons has allowed it to do so.'

Those permissions are not granted on a case by case basis. They were granted in perpetuity by treaty at Maastricht (and subsequently Lisbon) and were never subjected to public approval or disapproval. Blair promised a vote on Lisbon, of course, but then withdrew that commitment as he knew he'd lose badly.

You surely cannot be arguing that a decision taken unilaterally by governments that left office years before many voters were even born and which is effectively immutable (other than by leaving the EU, of course) can remain democratically legitimate in perpetuity? A key principle of the British constitution is that no Parliament may bind its successors in perpetuity and yet that is - in effect - precisely what signing these treaties did. As such, those 'permissions' are not democratically legitimate. The price paid to remain part of the EU was to abandon our system of democratic and parliamentary scrutiny over vast swathes of our statute book. To those of us who believe in democracy, it was not and is not a price worth paying.

Dismantling those treaties - because they subvert our domestic legislative process and allow laws to be passed pretty much in perpetuity without proper democratic scrutiny - is very much where the impetus for Brexit came from.

[WES]

Those permissions are not granted on a case by case basis. They were granted in perpetuity by treaty at Maastricht (and subsequently Lisbon) and were never subjected to public approval or disapproval. Blair promised a vote on Lisbon, of course, but then withdrew that commitment as he knew he'd lose badly.

You surely cannot be arguing that a decision taken unilaterally by governments that left office years before many voters were even born and which is effectively immutable (other than by leaving the EU, of course) can remain democratically legitimate in perpetuity? A key principle of the British constitution is that no Parliament may bind its successors in perpetuity and yet that is - in effect - precisely what signing these treaties did. As such, those 'permissions' are not democratically legitimate. The price paid to remain part of the EU was to abandon our system of democratic and parliamentary scrutiny over vast swathes of our statute book. To those of us who believe in democracy, it was not and is not a price worth paying.

Dismantling those treaties - because they subvert our domestic legislative process and allow laws to be passed pretty much in perpetuity without proper democratic scrutiny - is very much where the impetus for Brexit came from.

Your version of democracy seems to involve only British people voting on something. Of course we have less democratic control over how the EU votes, all countries do, it would have been impossible to form the EU and receive the benefits of it (which England has in spades) without sacrificing that level of democracy.

But to describe the EU as anti-democratic is simply wrong. It is democracy at a different level enforced in a different way for the benefit of the participants.

[redgunamo]

That's right. Or rather, their (the Europeans') version of democracy is so far at odds with ours that it hardly counts as the same thing, in our eyes. Germany doesn't even have the right to trial by jury, for God's sake!

Your version of democracy seems to involve only British people voting on something.

[WES]

That's right. Or rather, their (the Europeans') version of democracy is so far at odds with ours that it hardly counts as the same thing, in our eyes. Germany doesn't even have the right to trial by jury, for God's sake!

Oh I have no problem with people saying that the EU's version of democracy isn't good enough and we want to leave on that basis regardless of the impact on the country (in fact, that is the only Leave view that I have any respect for), but to refer to the EU as not being democratic is incorrect and the suggestion that a non-elected executive (it is elected) can pass legislation (it can't) without any democratic process (there is one) is simply incorrect.

People should be accurate even in matters emotional imo.