Could the commission be replaced by a cabinet of MEP's

sink

It is clear that people do not like the current set up in regards to the commission. They seem to believe it is undemocratic, unaccountable and does not represent their interests. I don't entirely share this view but it seems I am in a minority, so I will have to accept that. The commission is far more visible to the public than the directly elected parliament and that is where I think the disconnect between the electorate and the decision makers in Brussels is happening.

Now how do we solve this major issue? It has been floated by many no campaigns that each member state should have a permanent commissioner and that he/she should also be directly elected. This is not practical in my opinion because it will result in one country getting to elect a pointless commissioner for multilingualism while another gets to appoint an incredibly powerful commissioner for finance. As those commissioners would be directly elected there would be a major conflict of interest between doing what their electorate demands and what is right for everyone in Europe. I can say with full confidence that this system just wouldn't work.

The only other way to directly elect a commissioner would be for all 27 states to elect all commissioners together in an EU wide election. This too has it's problems mainly to do with language barriers and also the fact that smaller countries like Ireland would have a tiny percentage of the vote. So I do not think that this solution is practical either. Although it is preferable to each country electing their own commissioner.

The role of a commission is much like a cabinet of ministers. Whereby they manage their portfolios while also proposing new laws to be passed by the council (upper house) and the parliament (lower house). So far I am the only one I have seen to put forward the suggestion of scrapping the commission all together and replacing it with a proper elected government in the EU parliament which would form it's own cabinet of minister and would represent the interests of all the electorate. This seems to over come the problems that would arise with a directly elected commission and it would provide that valuable link between the sovereign people of Europe and their primary law makers. While you could also provide the same provision of subsidiary in the Lisbon treaty but make it much clearer in law where the jurisdiction of the EU parliament begins and the National parliament ends.

I would like to know what everyone else thinks of this system. Would it be democratic enough to satisfy the peoples of Europe? I am particularly interested in hearing from no voters who voted against the Lisbon treaty because they felt that Europe was run by an elite that was not accountable to them. Or would too many people feel like this would effectively make Europe a state and would take too much power from our national parliaments? I'm not really interested in the views of people who feel that Ireland should be part of a free trade agreement and nothing more because I already know how you would feel about my suggestion.

Thank for your suggestions!

regards,
sink

BMH

sink wrote: »

The role of a commission is much like a cabinet of ministers. Whereby they manage their portfolios while also proposing new laws to be passed by the council (upper house) and the parliament (lower house). So far I am the only one I have seen to put forward the suggestion of scrapping the commission all together and replacing it with a proper elected government in the EU parliament which would form it's own cabinet of minister and would represent the interests of all the electorate. This seems to over come the problems that would arise with a directly elected commission and it would provide that valuable link between the sovereign people of Europe and their primary law makers. While you could also provide the same provision of subsidiary in the Lisbon treaty but make it much clearer in law where the jurisdiction of the EU parliament begins and the National parliament ends.

How is it both directly elected yet not representative of special interests? I know you're thinking of a setup like our Dáil, but I think it's highly unlikely that parties that stand for election will not be based on national lines. And that would just bring in the same problem inherent in directly electing Commissioners, except now you elects MPs that elect Commissioners.

I think the only change that needs to come with regards the Commission is to drop it to 18 commissioners.

sink

BMH wrote: »

How is it both directly elected yet not representative of special interests? I know you're thinking of a setup like our Dáil, but I think it's highly unlikely that parties that stand for election will not be based on national lines. And that would just bring in the same problem inherent in directly electing Commissioners, except now you elects MPs that elect Commissioners.

I think the only change that needs to come with regards the Commission is to drop it to 18 commissioners.

But that is where the disillusionment comes from, having commissioner whom the people feel disconnected from. Now I may share your opinion that an 18 member commission based on equal rotation would work well, but clearly we both are in a minority.

I don't think you catch my drift in regards to the parliament. It would require EU wide parties as distinctive as our own, so when we elect our MEP's we are also voting for one of the large EU wide parties and not our own domestic parties.

BMH

sink wrote: »

But that is where the disillusionment comes from, having commissioner whom the people feel disconnected from. Now I may share your opinion that an 18 member commission based on equal rotation would work well, but clearly we both are in a minority.

I don't think you catch my drift in regards to the parliament. It would require EU wide parties as distinctive as our own, so when we elect our MEP's we are also voting for one of the large EU wide parties and not our own domestic parties.

But I'm saying these EU wide parties wouldn't work, and we'd end up with one or two parties for every country, that promise to do whatever they can for that country. I know that there are EU wide parties in the European parliament, but they seem to be little other than affiliations than political parties.

turgon

Excellent post sink.

Well your suggestion of scrapping the commission is highly innovative and one I hadn't considered. It could work too. However considering the Union is not as tight as say the US, it remains to be seen whether the politicians would give so much power to the people. However it is a suggestion of great merit.

An idea I thought of was to have commissioner groups (but quickly dismissed it in my mind). That is, have various groups (ie: British Isles, Iberia, Scandinavia/Norse, German speaking) who would elect 1 or 2 commissioners. This would probably be disastrous as the kind of national favoritism as seen at the Eurovison would be seen here.

A directly elected commission could rotate roles. However the inherent lack of experience that this would cause could be catastrophic. Additionally, commissioners would have political agendas.

So I don't no. Abolishing the commission seems the smartest call.

sink

BMH wrote: »

But I'm saying these EU wide parties wouldn't work, and we'd end up with one or two parties for every country, that promise to do whatever they can for that country. I know that there are EU wide parties in the European parliament, but they seem to be little other than affiliations than political parties.

The EU parliament would not deal with purely national issues such as taxation, policing and national law. It would only deal in the areas which have an EU wide scope in areas where national governments already co-operate, external border, common market etc.. So the lack benefits that countries would get as an working as an individual sate state would mirror the the lack of power that MEP's from one state would get when they only work inside a national framework. Basically MEP's from different countries would need to work together to have any influence. And you wouldn't have all MEP's from one state working together they would work split up between different parties which share more or less the same outlook.

BMH

sink wrote: »

The EU parliament would not deal with purely national issues such as taxation, policing and national law. It would only deal in the areas which have an EU wide scope in areas where national governments already co-operate, external border, common market etc.. So the lack benefits that countries would get as an working as an individual sate state would mirror the the lack of power that MEP's from one state would get when they only work inside a national framework. Basically MEP's from different countries would need to work together to have any influence. And you wouldn't have all MEP's from one state working together they would work split up between different parties which share more or less the same outlook.

I'm getting mixed up between the current parliament and your proposed one here. The EU already deals in issues like taxation and national law, and the Commission is in charge of proposing legislation for these areas.

There is still the problem of a Commission without an Irish voice. Statistically, it would be highly unlike that we'd have a commissioner, and this would actually be a problem as the commissioners would have to have a certain degree of regional bias to keep their seats, as much as it might be kept in check by party policy.

I do like the idea of being able to vote for a more socialist Europe though.

sink

BMH wrote: »

I'm getting mixed up between the current parliament and your proposed one here. The EU already deals in issues like taxation and national law, and the Commission is in charge of proposing legislation for these areas.

There is still the problem of a Commission without an Irish voice. Statistically, it would be highly unlike that we'd have a commissioner, and this would actually be a problem as the commissioners would have to have a certain degree of regional bias to keep their seats, as much as it might be kept in check by party policy.

I do like the idea of being able to vote for a more socialist Europe though.

Well I don't think the cabinet would be in power very long if the ministers only acted for the benefit of their home country. Similarly the minister of Ireland can't show bias towards their home county, because the electorate in the rest of the country would not accept that and vote the party out of power. The point is that the European parliament government would need to find broad support across all of Europe to get enough votes to be in power, that would make them account for all their actions in regards to the rest of Europe.

BMH

sink wrote: »

Well I don't think the cabinet would be in power very long if the ministers only acted for the benefit of their home country. Similarly the minister of Ireland can't show bias towards their home county, because the electorate in the rest of the country would not accept that and vote the party out of power. The point is that the European parliament government would need to find broad support across all of Europe to get enough votes to be in power, that would make them account for all their actions in regards to the rest of Europe.

It's certainly an intriguing concept. If voting is distributed democratically however, Ireland would lack the power to collapse any government, never mind the likes of Luxembourg. And if it isn't, is it really a much better alternative?
It would definitely get us engaged in EU politics though, which is certainly a good thing.

sink

BMH wrote: »

It's certainly an intriguing concept. If voting is distributed democratically however, Ireland would lack the power to collapse any government, never mind the likes of Luxembourg. And if it isn't, is it really a much better alternative?
It would definitely get us engaged in EU politics though, which is certainly a good thing.

I think we could stick with the distribution of MEP's set out in Lisbon. We would have 2.5 times as many MEP's per population as Germany, and Luxembourg would have somewhere in the region of 10 times the amount.

sink

The more I think about it, the more I believe it is the only way to solve the percieved democratic deficit and you are right it definitely would get people interested in EU politics (Communists vs Fascist would be interesting to watch).

nesf

I don't think scrapping the Commission would be the answer, I think a stronger a more publicised European Parliament would be preferable. The single biggest problem is that people on the ground are disconnected from the European Parliament. They don't really take MEP elections that seriously and it's extremely rare to hear anyone comment about anything it does.

If you're going to fix something, start with the basic democratic section of the EU that we already have.


The idea with the Commission is that its members would be "above" national politics. As an idea, I like it personally. I'd prefer if they were less powerful than the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers yet still very vocal and visible than to scrap it altogether.

sink

nesf wrote: »

I don't think scrapping the Commission would be the answer, I think a stronger a more publicised European Parliament would be preferable. The single biggest problem is that people on the ground are disconnected from the European Parliament. They don't really take MEP elections that seriously and it's extremely rare to hear anyone comment about anything it does.

If you're going to fix something, start with the basic democratic section of the EU that we already have.


The idea with the Commission is that its members would be "above" national politics. As an idea, I like it personally. I'd prefer if they were less powerful than the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers yet still very vocal and visible than to scrap it altogether.

The problem is, I have found that discussing anything EU with most people is difficult as they just zone out. How can you publicize something that people just are not interested in? I think having a cabinet with real power would also get them interested in the parliament and would make them take electing an MEP far more seriously as they could see their vote having a direct effect on whose the top man/woman in Europe.

menoscemo

sink wrote: »

It is clear that people do not like the current set up in regards to the commission. They seem to believe it is undemocratic, unaccountable and does not represent their interests. I don't entirely share this view but it seems I am in a minority, so I will have to accept that. The commission is far more visible to the public than the directly elected parliament and that is where I think the disconnect between the electorate and the decision makers in Brussels is happening.

Now how do we solve this major issue? It has been floated by many no campaigns that each member state should have a permanent commissioner and that he/she should also be directly elected. This is not practical in my opinion because it will result in one country getting to elect a pointless commissioner for multilingualism while another gets to appoint an incredibly powerful commissioner for finance. As those commissioners would be directly elected there would be a major conflict of interest between doing what their electorate demands and what is right for everyone in Europe. I can say with full confidence that this system just wouldn't work.

The only other way to directly elect a commissioner would be for all 27 states to elect all commissioners together in an EU wide election. This too has it's problems mainly to do with language barriers and also the fact that smaller countries like Ireland would have a tiny percentage of the vote. So I do not think that this solution is practical either. Although it is preferable to each country electing their own commissioner.

The role of a commission is much like a cabinet of ministers. Whereby they manage their portfolios while also proposing new laws to be passed by the council (upper house) and the parliament (lower house). So far I am the only one I have seen to put forward the suggestion of scrapping the commission all together and replacing it with a proper elected government in the EU parliament which would form it's own cabinet of minister and would represent the interests of all the electorate. This seems to over come the problems that would arise with a directly elected commission and it would provide that valuable link between the sovereign people of Europe and their primary law makers. While you could also provide the same provision of subsidiary in the Lisbon treaty but make it much clearer in law where the jurisdiction of the EU parliament begins and the National parliament ends.

I would like to know what everyone else thinks of this system. Would it be democratic enough to satisfy the peoples of Europe? I am particularly interested in hearing from no voters who voted against the Lisbon treaty because they felt that Europe was run by an elite that was not accountable to them. Or would too many people feel like this would effectively make Europe a state and would take too much power from our national parliaments? I'm not really interested in the views of people who feel that Ireland should be part of a free trade agreement and nothing more because I already know how you would feel about my suggestion.

Thank for your suggestions!

regards,
sink

Great post Sink. I like your idea a lot.
The only problem might be that you would get Anti-European voters from some countries (UK) electing a commsioner who might be anti-Eu and would try to tear it down from the inside.
Also If countries knew which commission role their man would be getting they might vote in favour of someone doing their own country a good deal (e.g. in agriculture)

In General however I think it could well work. I reckon that the candidates would have to be somewhat politically neutral, i.e. not represent a particular political party, much like in presedential elections here, and they would have to take an oath swearing to be somewhat unbiased/do the best for the EU as a whole.

nesf

sink wrote: »

The problem is, I have found that discussing anything EU with most people is difficult as they just zone out. How can you publicize something that people just are not interested in? I think having a cabinet with real power would also get them interested in the parliament and would make them take electing an MEP far more seriously as they could see their vote having a direct effect on whose the top man/woman in Europe.

That is the core of the problem. It's not that there's an enormous democratic deficit in the EU, it's that many Europeans don't seem to care about it. Even among politically active people I know in this country, very very few actually pay much attention to European politics to any great extent. The Irish papers reflect this tendency to a large extent, I've got to go to the Financial Times or the Economist if I want to read in depth analysis of what's going on in Europe.

sink

menoscemo wrote: »

Great post Sink. I like your idea a lot.
The only problem might be that you would get Anti-European voters from some countries (UK) electing a commsioner who might be anti-Eu and would try to tear it down from the inside.
Also If countries knew which commission role their man would be getting they might vote in favour of someone doing their own country a good deal (e.g. in agriculture)

In General however I think it could well work. I reckon that the candidates would have to be somewhat politically neutral, i.e. not represent a particular political party, much like in presedential elections here, and they would have to take an oath swearing to be somewhat unbiased/do the best for the EU as a whole.

Thanks for the input but I don't think you are quiet following me. There would be pan-European parties and those parties would have a leader and which ever party is able to form the largest party in a ruling coalition would put their leader forward for Prime Minister of Europe, this Prime Minister would then select his cabinet of minister from MEP's in his ruling coalition. Maybe you could make a law where there must never be more than two minister from each state that and would ensure fairer distribution across Europe. But basically as the ruling coalition would rely on the support of MEP's from many states they would have to show no bias in order to keep their government from collapsing.

sink

To add. The more nationalist Euroskeptic MEP's would be far less likely to get into a ruling coalition as they would have to co-operate with other nationalities in order to become ministers in the first place.

menoscemo

sink wrote: »

Thanks for the input but I don't think you are quiet following me. There would be pan-European parties and those parties would have a leader and which ever party is able to form the largest party in a ruling coalition would put their leader forward for Prime Minister of Europe, this Prime Minister would then select his cabinet of minister from MEP's in his ruling coalition. Maybe you could make a law where there must never be more than two minister from each state that and would ensure fairer distribution across Europe. But basically as the ruling coalition would rely on the support of MEP's from many states they would have to show no bias in order to keep their government from collapsing.

Sorry, re-read your OP. So I am assuming you are suggesting forming a 'government' from the present MEP's and their European coalitions?
e.g. the European People's party joining another pariamentary grouping or two to form governement?
So If Ireland votes in a certain Fine Gael MEP he gives a seat to the EPP, if a labour MEP a seat to the social democratic alliance etc?

Well it could work, but I think many people on the ground in each country might still feel unattacthed if they had no high powered cabinet members, but it would certainly give a democratic feel to the whole institutions.

I would have to think about this further, but I agree with yourself and Turgon that the present system of commissioners should be scrapped one way or another.

sink

menoscemo wrote: »

Sorry, re-read your OP. So I am assuming you are suggesting forming a 'government' from the present MEP's and their European coalitions?
e.g. the European People's party joining another pariamentary grouping or two to form governement?
So If Ireland votes in a certain Fine Gael MEP he gives a seat to the EPP, if a labour MEP a seat to the social democratic alliance etc?

Well it could work, but I think many people on the ground in each country might still feel unattacthed if they had no high powered cabinet members, but it would certainly give a democratic feel to the whole institutions.

I would have to think about this further, but I agree with yourself and Turgon that the present system of commissioners should be scrapped one way or another.

Precisely! I don't think EU citizens could feel less attached to the commission than they do now.

extragon

This was an idea examined by Giscard d'Estaing's constitutional convention, but it didn't get far. Governments didn't want to lose their powers of patronage. However, the Germans were in favour of elected commissioners, and Sarkozy spoke in favour of this when he was Interior minister.
In its simplest form - the commissioners would be MEPs selected by the European Parliament ( following agreed rules for national quotas ).
At a stroke this would solve the problem of democratic legitimacy. There wouldn't have to be EU wide political parties at first, though these could develop. This seems like the only way forward for institutional reform: a few simple measures to allow for the development of a European demos for pan European affairs.

menoscemo

sink wrote: »

I don't think EU citizens could feel less attached to the commission than they do now.

Exactly look at Peter Mandelson, forcibly retired from governement. Carrot to keep his trap shut? A nice cushty commissionership....

sink

extragon wrote: »

This was an idea examined by Giscard d'Estaing's constitutional convention, but it didn't get far. Governments didn't want to lose their powers of patronage. However, the Germans were in favour of elected commissioners, and Sarkozy spoke in favour of this when he was Interior minister.
In its simplest form - the commissioners would be MEPs selected by the European Parliament ( following agreed rules for national quotas ).
At a stroke this would solve the problem of democratic legitimacy. There wouldn't have to be EU wide political parties at first, though these could develop. This seems like the only way forward for institutional reform: a few simple measures to allow for the development of a European demos for pan European affairs.

Do you think the idea will be revived now that the Lisbon treaty has been rejected? I for one would support this wholeheartedly.

extragon

In France, during their referendum, half of the no campaigners I encountered surpported similar ideas ( in Paris, admittedly ). The constitution wasn't European enough. So there is some hope.
However, I wouldn't expect national politicians to promote a reduction in their own scope for action. An initiative will have to come from elsewhere. Interestingly, Ganley is quoted as suggesting that if we're to have a European foreign minister he should be elected by the people....