UKH

With Ursula in charge I'd guess Boris is going to find it hard going.

They will hold their line as our fantasies break like waves on a beach.

Aw, jeez, you don't think she's going to mention paragraph 5c when Boris starts going on about 5b do you?

Judging by the number of votes that she got she must be a very popular choice.

Her majority was 15% - imagine if it was for something for life and not just 5 years.

E

Only 4x the fraudulent Brexit margin then.

It doesn't matter that much for brexit. I assume she will follow the Juncker principle: maximum of 0.5 hours per week for brexit.

Not sure how it could take half an hour to say "Ask the same questions and get the same answers. Still no."

Hang on, isn't this one of those undemocratically appointed Eurocrats we hear so much about?  What's all this voting then?  

Probably because there are bigger issues, Italy, more quantitative easing, Iran, refugees, CAP, Greece and even green issues with many more green MEPs she'll have her work cut out for an MP whose never been above defence minister in her own country to suddenly be head of half a billion people. 

Hopefully though she'll gain a few hours a day if she can stay off the booze longer than juncker. 

Would you want to spend more than half an hour in a room with Boris?

My, we are bitter this morning aren't we?

With her saying she'd be prepared to extend Brexit negotiations if necessary, and Boris saying he's out end of Oct deal or no deal, it could be good news for Hunt?

Not unless that appeals to Tory party members.

You are aware that Juncker has sciatica. Even the Uk media now no longer promote this booze issue after being corrected.

I just googled ‘Juncker booze or sciatica ‘.

It’s not a scientific study but I’d guess that 80% of the news articles that appeared weren’t totally convinced about his sciatica.

Not that it’s that important anyway.

"HEAD of half a billion people", are you really serious ? You think she is now your leader ?

A bit like Obama being born outside the USA  sort of issue. 

On this sort of matter I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt and not believe a load of old shit I read in the europhobic press.

I can see how that might have been more of an an issue if it had been true but yes both the Obama birthplace and Juncker alcoholic stories were bandied about in order to denigrate those concerned.

I have more concern that with all the new appointments being made in the EU there was the chance to show how the EU was willing to change.

This might have gone some way to convincing leavers in the UK and populists throughout Europe that the EU was listening to their concerns.

Instead, it seems, that the new jobs will be divided up in the same old way.

We should, I suppose, celebrate the fact that a female has been awarded the top job.

I couldn’t care less if Juncker is an alcoholic or not as long as he can do his job.

I was responding to neilh’s post about how the press approached the story.

Hmm, she´s not exactly politically wet behind the ears.

Her father was president of Niedersachsen.

She was health and social minister of Niedersachsen

German family minister.

German employment and social minister.

German defence minister.

Probably a better resume than being finance and prime minister of Luxembourg

The Danish lady who was trade commissioner would have been a far far better choice. 

But what if they copied modern UK appointments and only gave it to her so they could say that a female has top job? That's not worth celebrating, is it?

Some wag actually commented on an internet news channel that a woman has held the top EU job for years.

That woman is Angela Merkel.

Made me smile anyway.

FTFY.

I agree it's some form of progress. 

Aye, you can't argue with her competence!

Oh so that's what is happening these days is it?

It would depend on whether I was allowed to take a cat-of-nine-tails into the room.

So why did you bring it up, then...?

I didn’t bring it up.

I was responding  to another poster.

Like what one does on an Internet forum.

What, from a party with one representative in the EU parliament (herself) and a member of the liberal group. You must be joking even to throw her name into the discussion.

As the Economist suggested often the best candidates are just ignored......

Hard to believe that she would have been the best candidate by any criteria!

I am not a CDU person, but I do have a lot of respect for the political skills of A. Merkel. Anybody who manages to stay in her government for more than 10 years will be very good indeed.

Apologies; you didn't. I was confusing you with summo.

No problem.

The elected parliament had a choice of one person to vote on. They could approve or veto. The Council decides who it wants as president of the Commission behind closed doors.

A little nod to democracy perhaps but hardly accountable to the electorate.

I think they are accountable but through a form of representative democracy that we've never really bothered to engage with (nor, to be fair, have our political parties).

If you mean that all EU citizens don't vote for the head of the commission directly from a list of candidates, you're right, but then that's not how we elect our own prime minister (let alone the head of the civil service) so I'm not sure why we would think that would be appropriate.

The Commission is the executive branch. In the UK this is the UK Government i.e. the Conservative MP's chosen as cabinet ministers by Theresa May in her role as Prime Minister at the moment. All directly accountable to voters and indirectly accountable via the UK Parliament. In democratic terms the PM is the equivalent of President of the Commission.

Notwithstanding current abuses of democracy, we do vote knowing who will be PM if our chosen party wins and I do think this is entirely appropriate.

I don't remember the Tories openly plugging their special bonus offer at the last General Election:  Buy one Theresa May now and collect a free Boris Johnson in two years time.

It's similar, but different. It's not true that the Commission is either "The Government" or "The Civil Service", but kind of somewhere between the two. Making direct comparisons to our own (equally weird) government/civil service are destined to fail and (handily) open to wild interpretations to suit whoever is making them.

Brown, May, and soon (oh gawd) Johnson. Yet to counter this, people used to criticise "President Blair" getting above his station as First Amongst Equals, so we like to have our cake an eat it, don't we? The EU Commission doesn't have some key powers that national executives have, for instance it has no formal role in common security or foreign affairs, which sit with the EU Council and Council of Ministers.

OK.  I don't think we really disagree but I think the real problem is the UK political parties have never really engaged with the European political blocs, have never made any attempt to educate the UK public as to how the elections to the European Parliament actually work and why they are important, and have been woeful in making friends and gaining the influence they could certainly have exerted.  British commissioners have generally been very positively received in Brussels but ignored at home, where it's usually regarded as a sinecure for washed-up cabinet also-rans.

Actually, on my occasional visits to the Commission (DG Comp) I heard plenty of British accents but back home anyone engaged at this level would of course be described as being on the gravy train and regarded with suspicion.  The Catch 22 being that anyone who actually knows anything about the EU is immediately regarded as having gone native and not worth listening to.

Members of the UK cabinet may be unelected persons, there is no requirement they were ever elected. They can be from the House of Lords or just an anybody, Peter Mandelson being an example (he was then given a peerage).

Do cabinet members have to be British?  Could we have Donald Tusk so that there would be at least one sensible person who understood the EU in government?

Notwithstanding the fact it's the second time they've done it. As that's how one Mrs T May got in there in the first place too.

Ok, the political institutions of the EU and UK don't directly match up and I completely agree that our democracy could do with reform as well. I don't think that anyone above is arguing that the EU institutions are more accountable to the electorate than they are in the UK though.

Democracy doesn't work when people are unengaged and uninformed, which in the UK is a problem partly caused by our archaic political institutions but primarily the making of our mass media. With the EU the institutions seem to have been set up deliberately in order to shield the executive from democratic oversight.

If your position on Brexit is remain and reform then the democratic deficit of the EU is the area where reform is most urgently needed.

Mass media dominated by those with an anti-EU agenda, employing liars like Johnson to file stories telling lies about EU policy for years, and continuing to present only negative views of the EU, never 'what have the Romans ever done for us?' stories.

And that lying shit Johnson is still doing it; the Manx kipper story.

Hmm, the Commission has to be approved by the European Parliament (the directly elected representatives) and is accountable to them, they can dismiss the entire Commission at any time.

Exactly how much more democratic accountability could be built into a practical system is hard to see.

I'll happily argue that one though...

The EU does not have FPTP.

The EU does not have two party politics, so the electorate has actually a reasonable choice to make.

The EU does not have the House of Lords. (And the EU council and commission presidents definitely cannot promote hundreds of their supporters into the legislature.)

The EU does not automatically grant the high clergy of the state religion a position in the legislature.

The EU does not have an unelected head of state.

It is too easy to blaim the media. The people actually have a choice in which papers and televion programs they watch and read. I think the lack of knowledge about the EU could also be due to the education system. In NL the workings of the EU is taught in schools...

Why is there no democratic oversight in the EU?

The executive is answerable to the parliament. And to the council. In practice anything important requires at least a majority vote of the directly elected parliament, and a QMV vote of the indirectly elected council.

There is an argument to be made to shift power from the council to the parliament. As long as most european people (and definitely most UK voters) do not want the parliament to have more power, it won't. That is democracy. I am OK with the distribution of power between the council and the parliament. It makes sure that the voices of small countries (which have little representation in parliament) are taken into account as well. The large majority required for decision making can make the EU slow to act, but it is very hard to push through an agenda against the will of the people.

Just because the UK system is several hundred years old and needs reform, doesn't mean the eu system is all roses either. 

EPP and PES? There are still groups and allegiances. 

No, the German minister appeared from the result of many closed door meetings and the MEPS voted for her from a cast of 1. A take it or leave vote. It wasn't an election where they openly voted from a cast of say 5 and the one with most votes took the post. Most senior staff never thought she was even being considered for the role.

Maybe they don't want the UK to know they are funding Strasbourg, that 40% of the whole budget goes on CAP or the uk's net loss of fish etc.. the eu has a PR and media budget, it's up to them how they use it. 

I'd be more concerned about financial oversight, lost money in dead end projects like Spanish airports, grant fraud, more public information on the scale of QE etc. 

Small countries are protected anyway as per capita they have more MEPs. The reality is those paying the most cash in the pot have the most sway.  You didn't exactly see much small country influence over the eu's handling of Greek debt or Russian sanctions over the Crimea/Ukraine, Merkel was in charge. 

You really have no idea have you?.

Originally there were 15  candidates proposed by the various  parties under the lead candidate system. The Council then consults the Parliament to see who has enough support (none of the original candidates could gain enough cross-party support). The Council then votes by QM for their preferred candidate and Parliament votes to accept or reject them by simple majority.

I have a GCSE and an A Level is politics, it is going back many years, but it was 1992 / 1993 so the political institutions of Europe were definitely news worthy. I don’t remember studying very much at all about those institutions, in fact nothing at all.

Thinking back the course was called British Government and Politics, but there wasn’t a course with a wider curriculum on offer and I don’t think there was any scope for comparative analysis, or even gaining a understanding of the relationship between the government of the U.K. and Europe.

Which means you get the one least disliked and it's far from public, when a rank outsider appears from no where and gets the job, with the sole basis for her qualification is being pro rapid further integration and it's politically wise for some in the German leadership to get her out the way for a few years, as she's a strong leader in her homeland and might threaten their current or future posts.

What's the public got to do with it? The Commission leads the executive of the European Parliament and is appointed (and can be dismissed) by them.

So it's not really any more democratic than the politicians appoibting new lords or ladies, where those previously elected have the say, not the public. They don't speak to their electorate to say the German defence minister has been nominated at the last minute what do you think etc. 

It is a practical way of appointing somebody acceptable to both the democratically elected national governments on European Council AND the democratically elected MEPs.

You could instigate a third parallel democratic mandate for the commission with an EU wide direct election but democratically elected national governments who set EU policy and direction on European Council have declined to do that.

You really don't know what you are on about do you? The lead candidate system was agreed on so that the parties would nominate their chosen people to lead them in their European elections and give them some "democratic" credibility. This ended up with the aforementioned ragbag of 15 political nonentities who the European Parliament rejected totally. As this was a failure it was back to finding someone else acceptable to the majority

If it was similar to the UK system those 15 people forming a government would have been selected from parliament so would all have some sort of direct mandate from the electorate.

Ok, there's exceptions in the UK system that have been pointed out in this thread, and the Lord's is a glaring affront to democracy (which Labour are proposing to abolish by the way), but the important point is that it's much easier for the UK electorate to change the direction of government than it is for the EU electorate to do the same.

'the important point is that it's much easier for the UK electorate to change the direction of government'

Is that a good thing?

The Commision isn't the EU government.

What is it then?

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/index_en

And can you tell them?  “The EU Commission is the executive of the EU”.  What we call the government.

So what do you call the legislature? You know, the ones that make laws and tell the executive to, err, execute them.

I call it the legislature...

They don’t tell government what to do, and the government’s job is not just to execute laws made by them.

it doesn't directly compare to the British system because the British system doesn't have a presidency which the EU does. If you want to say the commission is the government of the EU then what is the council of ministers?

Some of the roles of the Commission are somewhat akin to to the government in the UK ok but many more are closer to the the role that is done by the civil service here.

The government (small g) is in most democratic countries) is composed of three elements, the legislature, the executive and judiciary. The executive is completely subservient to the legislature, (the Government with a capital) which can form new ministries, combine them or dissolve them at will.  The executive must follow instruction from the legislature unless the judiciary (who are nominally independent) decide otherwise.

Well 7 presidents to be accurate

The government when used in this country means the executive.

The executive are not subservient to the legislature they are a different thing, they limit the actions of government (the executive) by making law but they do not tell them what to do.

Yes, it doesn’t compare to the British system directly.  The EU state that the Commission is their executive.  Are they lying/wrong?

The civil service here are subservient to the government.

The executive in the UK is controlled by Parliament, de facto the party with the majority in the Commons forms the Government and controls the executive.

If you believe that, you'll believe anything!

Subservient is quite a different thing, Parliament does not instruct government.

If you’re talking about elsewhere - eg the US - it’s even more incorrect to say that the executive is subject to the legislature.  The houses cannot tell the president what to do.

The executive is completely subservient to Parliament. As are you and everybody else unless the Judiciary decide otherwise.

The USA is a red herring, the President is also head of the executive and can make executive orders within either the limits of the constitution or the relevant law.

Oh you naïve little darling!  There is an outstanding documentary series you really need to watch:

youtube.com/watch?v=gmOvEwtDycs&

No, you’re wrong.  The executive can (eg) take us to war tomorrow because they have that power, not Parliament.  Parliament can change that, of course, but as it is the executive have the power to make certain decisions, hence all the fuss about proroguing Parliament.

The US is the example of a presidential system.  It’s not a red herring it’s an example of how you are wrong to say that the legislature is in charge of the executive.

Take some time off to learn how the British an EU  systems work. The ONLY person in the UK that can declare war is the Queen.

Really, semantic trivia?  The executive in practice tell the queen what to do, and she does it.  In that semantic sense the queen is the only person who can pass laws!

Maybe you should take that time off yourself.

It's a word, it depends what you mean by executive. The civil service has the role to execute the orders of the government. But with the American system they use the term executive to mean the president. Different systems, different uses of the word.

Tell that to Sir Humphrey!

Have you heard the story about when Winston Churchill went to to Washington near the end of the second world war to begin the negotiations on the future of Europe? He had to go back to the UK to contest the general election where of course labour won. The Americans were shocked when a few weeks later Clement Attlee came back to the White House with exactly the same people sitting either side of him! I got told that by an American diplomat a few years ago so there clearly still talking about it now!

Parliament tells the executive what to do.

Are you saying the legislature make laws or the executive? Either way I don't think that's correct, is it? 

Fair point, but so far as I’m aware they mean it in its usual sense.  The Commission sets policy, it proposes legislation, it runs things day to day.  It is not ordered around, it’s bound by the treaties to act independently.

What do you think it’s for/what does it do? 

The President is equivalent to our executive.  He, through those he picks, governs day to day.  It’s pretty much the same use of the word.

It’s a TV program!

Its a good story!

The legislature make law, part of that is limiting (and adding to) the powers of the executive - too many “they”s, sorry.  It’s definitely correct.

Jimtitt - you can repeat it all you like, you’re still wrong.  The executive decide what to do by themselves.  Why do you think there’s all this talk/complaint about proroguing Parliament if the government only do what they’re told?

And?

A meaningless choice where people vote for wildly disparate reasons.

If we want to we can scrap the House of Lords tomorrow.

As above.

Yes it does.  In any case ours is a figurehead with no real power.

Because the democratic bits are an afterthought added later as a sop to democracy, rather than an actual attempt to make the EU democratic.

None of this counters the point.  The Council aren’t elected based on the decisions they make or intend to make in the EU, neither are the Parliament.  They’re elected based on local politics.  We don’t exercise actual control over EU government action.  We, the U.K. electorate, very much exercise control over government action, the same is true in the US, etc.

No, it’s not.  Democracy is that the people set the direction of government (in the wider sense) action.  We, the EU electorate, do not do that.

It makes it hard to push through an agenda that’s against the will of the politicians.  The Lisbon treaty (the renamed EU Constitution) was easily pushed through against the will of the people.  When people voted against they were just sidestepped.

I should have used the capital letter as it is the Government in the sense of "Theresa Mays Government" that I was referring to. Sorry for any confusion.

My concern is that in a democracy, the people and organisations holding power should be as accountable to the electorate as possible.

Neither in the EU or the UK does Parliament tell the EU Commission/UK Government what to do but at least in the UK system the Parliament can initiate legislation unlike its counterpart in the EU which is not allowed to propose a new law.

As for the European Councils role, that would be like a FPTP system where the constituency is an entire nation and half of them are rotten boroughs.

There is some democracy in the EU but power is at least a step removed from the electorate than it is in most national systems and this is where reform is urgently needed.

Hmmm, right. It's the oddles of popular support it has from the general public that keeps it there.

It's the 2 party FPTP system where neither party has felt the need to do it until now.

https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/constitution/house-lords-reform/news/9...

Of course. I was being sarcastic.

No it doesn't because its not a state.

If you are really interested in delving into the arcane relationships between the "institutional triangle" and other parts of the EU governance and don't want to buy an undergraduate EU studies textbook, here's not a bad place to start https://www.ceps.eu/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Ever-Changing%20Union%20e-ve... It's a bit out of date but not much because things haven't changed dramatically since Lisbon.

It’s interesting that you don’t want to expand at all on where I’ve gone wrong on what the Commision does.  What do you think it’s role/purpose is if it’s not the executive of the EU?  Do you have any response to the other democratic problems?

Edit - I don’t dismiss the Council so don’t want to give that impression.  The Commission aren’t directly equivalent to our government the Council of course have executive type powers too.  The Commission do have decision making power though, they are not a civil service.

The House of Lords isn’t ideal, but it’s subordinate to the HofC, it only slows down legislation at best, it’s just whataboutery.  The patronising attitude really doesn’t convince, I’ve already studied this at undergrad.

The executive can decide what to do all they like but they need permission from Parliament to do anything. The executive is still subservient to Parliament, Teresa May was shown this repeatedly. Proroguing would be a way of removing Parliament temporarily to prevent them from defeating the government. To be semantic Boris would have to ask an old lady to do it for him as he hasn't the power over Parliament,

Of course he will say that. Until he gets booted out of leadership of the party, but soften the blow by making him a Lord. 

I go back to your earlier statement "The civil service here are subservient to the government." Yes it is. Sort of. The EU Commission is subservient of the member states and the European Parliament. Sort of.

I presume if you've done a degree in European Studies, or Politics with units on the EU you'll be well aware of the history of how the institutional architecture of the EU developed. The Commission is very influential in what used to be called Pillar I, the Communities, but not in Pillars II and III (JHA and CFSP). Despite "de-pillarisation" (!) that still remains pretty much the case. My PhD and then my old job dealt with security, both external and internal to the Union. You could always get interviews with people in the Commission on say, counter-terrorism issues, because they really didn't have much influence on the issues, it was all done through the member states. You might remember when Cathy Ashton became High Rep, there was plenty of mutterings that it was basically handing over Union foreign policy to solely the Council (and even worse - that really meant Le Brits!). So if you are interested in external affairs, the Commission isn't important beyond trade policy.

But look at lobbyists - they are all around the Commission, because they propose the legislation that affects commercial interests (but that's also similar with civil service in Whitehall - you have people on secondment from Oxfam in DID and from BAE in MOD etc etc). Nevertheless lobbying in Brussels is now also focused on the EP because of their powerful role post Lisbon in passing legislation.

The Commission can't "do what it likes", and it's not "unelected Brussels bureaucrats running Europe and Britain" (I'm not suggesting you said that but they are common tropes aren't they). There are lot of issues around democracy at the union level just like there are at national levels - as our probable new prime minister illustrates - but just saying "The Commission!!! Boo!!! Hiss!!!" doesn't really prove much about whether the EU is a good or bad idea.

On the Commission itself, Simon Hix explains why the Commission's Commissioners aren't unelected bureaucrats but what issues remain in terms of democratic deficit better than I can http://www.democraticaudit.com/2016/06/23/is-the-eu-really-run-by-unelected...

Yes, proroguing would be exactly that, and he'd have that power.  The government does not have a simple subservient relationship to Parliament, it's chosen and then it gets to choose how to do things while its there.  It has power, day to day.  If Parliament doesn't like it then of course they can remove it, and to do certain things they must do them through Parliament.  Silly tricks to try and stop Boris doing it are a bad idea - if they've got no confidence they should just have that a vote on that and remove him before that can happen.

To be semantic Parliament can't do anything at all, and neither can the government, without the old lady telling them they can!

And 'the old lady' could easily stop it, I believe.

The relationship is just not similar.  The civil service do not run things day to day, they are subservient.  The Commission has power in a similar way to our government - they run things day to day and can (theoretically) be sacked.  Politically they have to have a relationship with the Council and the EU Parliament, politically our government must have a relationship with our Parliament.  The civil service just follow orders, and give advice.

Law with extra EU units, but yes.  Why would I only be interested in external affairs?

Right, because the Commission has power.

The Commission can do what it likes, within the powers that it has.  The same is true for the US President, and the UK government (far more power, of course).  They're not elected in common terms (ie public voting for them), and they do run things.  Not all things, and not on their own, but I don't think anyone pretends that the Council and the EU Parliament don't exist.

It just misses the point.  The whole system doesn't work to give people any real power.  The EU Parliament are largely voted for on national issues, and so that's a problem.  The same is true even more of the Council.  The EU Commission are unelected and the decisions made are remote and opaque.  Arguing that the EU Commission aren't all powerful just ignores the issue.  The only point he does make, which is fair, is that there have been moves to try and make it more democratic - but they aren't nearly enough.

I don't think the EU should have a stronger democratic mandate. I think the strongest democratic mandate should remain as it is now with the national governments. Hence European Council should remain as the body setting policy to be implemented by commission. After all, it is the national governments who pay the bills.

It is not perfect but it is practical.

Well it’s us who pay the bills really, since it’s us who fund the national governments.  Fair enough though, if you’re not concerned about democratic legitimacy then you’re not.

What do you mean by practical?  If you mean getting decisions made then so’s Saudi’s government.  Not having us pesky citizens get involved makes things easier for rulers, sure.

My democratic national government can lend their democratic legitimacy to anybody (eg UK ambassadors or EU commissioners) or anything (UN, EU, Interpol, Euroatom etc etc etc) they wish.

Peace, trade and cooperation for sixty years.

I prefer my elected national government to represent me internationally.

With nothing more to stop her than a few centuries of tradition that she's scrupulously observed throughout the entirety of her long life so far, our unwritten (unfortunately) constitution and the huge constitutional crisis that is probably inevitable now anyway but would certainly be triggered immediately should she choose to do so.

I'm not sure about "easily", strikes me it would be massively stressful for her.  What she could easily do, being as wealthy and well insulated as she is, is ride out the effects of a no-deal Brexit the same way the wealthy and well-insulated scumbags who are all for it plan to do while a few million paupers crash and burn.

I don’t believe they can, and still retain that legitimacy.  I’ve explained why.

Fair enough, nothing at all to do with democracy of course.

So do I - that’s part of the reason to vote leave.  National governments haven’t been negotiating with us, the EU have.

The UK government is hundreds of thousands of people and I think the UK government has democratic legitimacy even though only a tiny proportion (eg 650 MPs) is elected. Whatever a democratic government agrees to has democratic legitimacy.

Obviously there are hopefully only hypothetical exceptions, implementing a manifesto promise to kill all gingers has no democratic legitimacy!

If national governments ask the eu to represent them in negotiations that is within the sovereign rights of those national states.

If we vote in people that hand all power to the Queen to rule that would be something an elected government agreed to, and it would be within their sovereign rights to do that.  It wouldn’t make the resulting state democratic though...

Obviously there are exceptions that are hopefully only hypothetical. Appointment by parliament of an absolute monarchy is only a hypothetical it is safe to say.

The point is that neither being a decision of the state nor a decision that’s within the states power to make give democratic legitimacy to that decision.  Both things you’ve said are true, but so what?  They don’t engage with the problem.

I don't really see it as a problem when a democratic government delegates authority to or regains authority from people (diplomats, police officers, judges) or organisations (EU, UN, inumerable international medical/trade/nuclear proliferation bodies) BY CHOICE. That lends or removes democratic legitimacy to those who gain or lose authority to represent or act for a democracy.

I'm quite happy the government appoints people to roles rather than ask me to elect  the local  police constable or the best expert to represent the UK on nuclear proliferation or ebola prevention.

I'm quite happy for the UK government to participate in decision making for international bodies such as eu where we have been one voice amongst 28. The 28 democratic governments' participation gives democratic legitimacy to those decisions.

You’re just repeating yourself.  If you don’t think there’s any issue with the the gulf between voters’ reasons for voting and actual decision making fine, but we’ve got nothing to talk about.

If there is gulf it is up to the electorate to fix that by voting for somebody else. 

Well that we did.

Yes. And that is why the EU is democratic.

Yes, a democratic government has to delegate day to day tasks to unelected people, such as thousands of civil servants, and there will be reasons why it might delegate important decisions to unelected experts in those relevant fields or an international body. I can't see anyone having a problem with this. The test for democracy though comes when those delegated decisions don't work for the benefit of the electorate in which case a functional democracy will allow the electorate to affect those delegated decisions by holding the elected government to account.

Nobody is saying there is no democracy in the EU, the concern is whether the balance is right between practical government and democratic legitimacy. Are the decisions made close enough to the electorate for the power it has?

...and the EP approved the new Comission, following the advice of the member states. Did you vote for the UK ambassador to Washington? Or NATO? Or the UN?

That is a very good question to which I have no glib answer. International decisions are inevitably more remote because they are not national or regional. 

EU is a practical way for a group of nation states to make those decisions mainly though nationally elected PMs and presidents on European Council. 

Maybe try turning the question around: Can the electorate be expected to be sufficiently well informed as to be able to make good choices at the level of direct-democracy engagement required?

That's the reason why we have a representative democracy in the first place, electing people locally to make decisions nationally on our behalf, given that people simply do not have the time (and in many cases also the interest) to inform themselves of all the issues upon which decisions are needed. It doesn't work particularly well but better options are notably thin on the ground. A natural extension of this is to choose people nationally who will make decisions internationally on our behalf. Direct democracy on international issues makes even less sense most of the time than it does nationally.

Absolutely  - We shud deffinity pull out of undemocratik NATO.  I suggest the autocrats in the MOD shud be mad accountable by having locale Defense Commishoners electid by the peeple so eech plaice gets the defensse it wants .  If for the polis why not for the mary?

Even then, if the appointment of an absolute monarch would be easily reversible through means of parliament, then it wouldn’t be an absolute monarch at all.

That’s the main heuristic to detect a democratic system against a tyranny, can you leave or change that system without violence ? If yes, that’s probably a democratic system, if not, that’s probably a tyranny.

You already know the response to that - they’re not remotely comparable positions.  Our government make the relevant decisions, not diplomats who just advise.

They are perfectly comparable, but they are -of course- not exactly the same. It's like you learnt enough about EU governance to support your preconceived ideas then stopped going to the lectures at that point! I guess they did Commission first but you didn't stick around for the Council and Parliament bits!

In addition those elected representatives in turn will rely  on experts to further supply them with information to make informed decisions and then provide the knowledge to implement those decisions

technocrats if you will

unelected technocrats

because any system that thinks you can elect experts is F£&@ed 😏

So, in order to govern effectively, practical choices have to be made about how accountable to the electorate the decision makers can be. I would say that all democracies should be striving to give as much control to the electorate as is practically possible. Democracy should work for people but if the decisions are shielded too far from the electorate then those decisions can be made without regards to peoples needs.

You are both saying that by necessity an international organisation such as the EU can't be as accountable to its electorate as a nation state. If that is the case an international organisation shouldn't be given the power to make decisions that are usually the responsibility of nation states then. Otherwise  a better form of democracy needs to be found.

I'm all ears. While you're thinking up a good plan, unless we want to go down an isolationist route we still need to find a way to work very closely together with our main trading partners, and the system we have in place at the moment doesn't seem to have been doing a hopelessly bad job at all so far. Certainly not compared to the disaster that goes by the name of democracy in the UK right now.

I am saying the EU is mainly accountable to the elected heads of government on European Council. That has the advantage you can have practical international decision making by consensus between national governments but retain democratic mandate more at the national level.

You could have one of many different democratic arrangements, but I prefer to keep the democratic mandate primarily at national level and let negotiations between elected national governments set policy and direction.

Well I can compare bricks and sheep I guess, so sure they’re perfectly comparable if you’re using the term that way.

I note you’ve not tried to correct my so obviously flawed understanding, again.  Where exactly is it that I’m wrong?  Do you have any response on the problems with the other parts of the system?  The patronising attitude combined with complete lack of substance really does help confirm my biases on this.

You said ages ago:

It's wrong on many levels. You want the Commission to be the EU government so that you can say the EU is run by unelected bureaucrats.

I've explained why Commissioners aren't just "unelected bureaucrats" and that the executive isn't the whole government, and that "the executive" means different thing in different systems. The EU Commission isn't equivalent to our government.

Any specific levels?  If you mean that they don’t have exactly the powers our government have I’ve said that several times.  They do run things day to day, they propose legislation, you’re not disputing that are you?

No, it just is what it is - and it’s just part of the problem.  In common usage we take government to mean the executive, Parliament the legislature.  The term used isn’t really important, what matters is what power they have.  If your whole argument is that I’ve used a word wrong it’s a bit meaningless...

edit - and you’d best tell the bbc that Priti Patel isn’t returning to government  https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49102466

I know they’re not exactly equivalent exactly, I’ve said so, but they are similar, that’s why they call themselves the executive.  That’s why all the texts do, that’s why wiki does.  They're selected in the way they are, and that’s not elected.  I’ve no idea where we disagree on the facts there.  Do we?  Any thoughts on the rest?