← Back to context

Comment by RobertoG

18 hours ago

The fact that you think that the Commission represent the states members instead of the interest of the European Union shows how mess up and contradictory the system is. The Council is the body that represent the state members.

You probably think that, because the commission is composed by representatives of every country, but they are "bound by their oath of office to represent the interest of the EU as a whole rather than their home state". That in itself is already contradictory. Those representatives are not elected officials but are the more powerful in the system.

The European Commission is the executive branch of the European Union. In not sane system, the executive branch is in charge of proposing legislation, because that make the all 'separation of powers' concept useless.

>>"How would YOU propose that the EU work to be "more democratic" - while also considering that your government needs to be involved and influential?"

Well, or you give the parliament real legislative and budgetary powers or all the system is a farce and you should dissolve it. If you want to keep the interest of individual countries in the process you need another chamber, elected by the people, that would represent the national interests.

Not only the system is undemocratic but it's winning power. The European Council can sanction you because doesn't like what you are saying without any judicial supervision. The budget is used to blackmail countries that don't agree with the commission views. Even the European Central Bank was used for blackmailing Greece in the Debt crisis of 2011. If that's democracy, the word democracy has not meaning anymore.

So your proposal is to remove the input from the individual state governments and make it entirely citizen led?

Wouldn't that make it a government and remove the sovereignty of the individual states?

Not saying thats a bad idea - its just the exact opposite of the usual "undemocratic" rhetoric.

  • The EU could be just a bunch of agreements between countries about commerce and freedom of movement. The EU could be a federation of states with proper institutions. What the EU should not be is a superstructure over member countries without proper democratic control. And this is what is now and going worst by the day.

    If you are interested in a federation, you could have an American bicameral model, with the senate representing the countries interest (1).

    The current path of the EU is, in my opinion, very worrisome. The important issues are decided in close doors. The Commission and the Council feel that they can 'sanction' citizens without judicial supervision. The countries that not play along are blackmailed. The Commission officials feel that they can speak for all Europe when most citizens disagree with what they are saying. They feel that they can block the public discourse that they don't like, and now they want total control of our communications.

    (1) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Congress

    • So your ideal is the EU as a federation - i.e. the removal of domestic authority.

      Can you give concrete examples of these "important issues" that are supposedly being decided behind closed doors?

      What sanctions are you talking about that require judicial supervision? Pretty sure all EU states can issue their own sanctions without needing a court to approve them.

      How exactly is the Commission blocking public discourse? What are they doing, and where is this happening?

    • The american system is the last one we should copy. EU is different, its not a nation, it is made up by nations. All your points reads mainly like you don't understand what EU is now and what it to be more like what you imagine it should be.

      Also countries can not be blackmailed enough as the Hungary debacle clearly shows.