EU job picks are undemocratic – good

Hawkeye

The "smoke filled room" selection method has been so discredited throughout history that I'm staggered anyone could defend it.

I was even more gob-smacked by Lady Ashton's assertion (on R4 IIRC) that after 28 years in politics she was proud that she had never been elected for any position she held. WTF? That's something to proud of?

The EU and everything to do with it stinks of corruption, deception, patronage and cover up. If any of our political parties had the balls to hold an "in or out" referendum I would be campaigning very strongly for OUT.

The EU is nothing more than a gravy train for failed politicians to promulgate their failed political philosophies. There is nothing remotely admirable about it.

JONNY

But Daniel, the unelected Lady Ashton has been nominated by a PM who is himself unelected.
And so ad infinitum.

Paul Hughes

Who is this Quisling? The point is that the posts should simply not exist without a democratic mandate. Jeez, someone pass me the Soma...

Allan

I think you miss the point Mr Korski, the whole point in having elections across the EU would mean that people from all parts of the spectrum could stand put their vision for the EU to the people and then the people would decide so we might have someone like Vaklav Klaus who is a eurosceptic standing, whereas at the moment there is no choice, it will be a pro-federalist or no one.

In2minds

“In the end, Mr Rompuy and Lady Ashton gain democratic legitimacy from being selected by governments who in turn are elected”.

No they don't but I can't be bothered to explain as I don't think you know what democracy means.

Lola

This really is an argument for why the EU shouldn't exist - as currently constructed with super state ambitions - at all. The EU is unecessary, therefore Messr Le President is unecessary.

Dave

Erm, Jonny, we live in a parliamentary democracy. We elect the party, not the prime minister. The ignorance of the eurosceptic nutters is astounding.

Paul Hughes

This is all akin to what I hear in the playground: "I'm not the only one, NATO did it too. Why aren't you telling the UN off as well?

Duyfken

Daniel Korski? Give me Daniel Hannan any day.

dmatr

I think it's great that Mr Korski has taken on the role of Comedy Europhile with such gusto.

He's hilarious, and completely nails the "i have no coherent arguments so I'm going to spout nonsensical gibberish instead" approach we've come to expect from the europhile camp. Brilliant.

nick

It's yet one more example of a political aristocracy. Unelected, exempt from the pain of their own actions, enriching themselves finacially at everyone else's cost, and not subject to any control.

Somehow we are expected to believe that is a good thing?

Verity

Never mind Europhile Daniel Korski. William Langley, in The Telegraph, makes a meal of it. Seventy-one comments on his piece so far.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/6623928/Herman-Van-Rompuy-and-Baroness-Ashton-the-EUs-perfect-couple-of-nobodies.html

Liz Brown

Daniel Korski - doesn't a job await you in Brussels - why don't you just wander over there and away from the Coffee House. In Britain, we have rather quaint (tho somewhat tarnished) reputation for electing those who purport to govern us and we would quite like to keep it that way

Always British Never European

Even if there was election for the posts it would be slightly less than useless because there is no EU demos or identity. To be a "European" has no depth, soul, meaning or loyalty. Europe is a continent trying to pretend it is a state, despite very few people of the continent's nation states, particularly Great Britain, wanting to be part of a country called Europe.

Jean Monnet and Arthur Salters outdated 1920's ideological project has no "soul" and will, like all failed ideologies, eventually die.

Hopefully the EU project's death will, for the people of the continent, be a peaceful death.

Europe is simply an area of land mass on the planets surface. Long may it continue....

phil

Seems a good point to me: the new 'president' obviously has no democratic mandate and can be safely ignored. A 'proper' election would create a far more powerful EU...

steveal

Non-democracy raised to new heights...

Nicholas

It is because of people like you Mr Korski and your defence of the indefensible that we are in the position we are in. The term "useful idiots" comes to mind (no offence).

In this case it appears that not only were these potentially empowered roles unelected (by anyone, not just the proles) but the process of selection is a mystery. For all we know it may have been the result of very large brown envelopes stuffed full of cash being delivered to the right people.

There is much to be concerned about here and the concerns far outweigh any defence of the "process" (which can hardly be defended since we don't know what it was) but I understand that the purpose of Coffee House blog posts is to provoke and get a spirited reaction from the window lickers. In that sense you have succeeded, scoring 8 out of 10. In terms of serious political debate about what is being done to us as a nation you score 1 out of 10 (because you did at least blog on the subject, unlike Neathergate which is consigned to Nacht und Nebel).

denis cooper

I don't expect to say this very often, but on this occasion Daniel Korski is right and his critics are wrong.

I'm in a bit of a rush, so please forgive me if I just cut and paste my last comment around this subject, in response to Peter Hoskin yesterday:

""If the EU ever expects the public to take these new roles seriously, then you suspect the selection procedure will have to become a whole lot more democratic."

No, no, no.

Let's start again from the beginning.

The EU is not yet a sovereign nation state; it's still an international organisation established by treaties between its sovereign member states.

A sovereign nation state can be successfully governed by "democracy", assuming that the population is sufficiently unified that it can be considered a "demos", and that members of that "demos" are willing to submit to some kind of "democratic" rule at the hands of their fellow countrymen.

In contrast, lacking a "demos" an international organisation like the EU can never aspire to any genuine form of "democracy"; so it should be governed by international "diplomacy", accepting that in legal terms all of its member states are sovereign equals irrespective of their populations.

So when you call for a selection procedure which is "a whole lot more democratic", you are in fact calling for the EU to behave more like a sovereign nation state, with for example the large German population always being able to easily outvote smaller populations like the Irish.

You have to make up your mind on this.

If you believe in the national sovereignty of each of the EU member states, you cannot also believe in allowing that sovereignty to be vitiated by any process of majority voting in the EU institutions; and if you believe in national democracy, then you cannot allow that to be superseded by a transnational pseudo-democracy."

oohkuchi

How is it that the eurosceptics get so worked up about the EU usurping political sovereignty, and remain so silent about the US military usurping our military independence? No country that hosts foreign military bases, or fights under another country's commanders, as we do whenever the White House whistles, can call itself truly independent. Part of England are off-limits to English people because of this. And the eurosceptics say nothing. They work themselves into a childish lather over metric measurements and banana dimensions while happily accepting the effective transfer of military bases--English land--to the US. I didn't get a chance to vote on this. Why so silent, eurosceptics?

Snowman

dennis cooper @ 5.56:

In your argument you are conveniently forgetting that the monster has been chipping at our sovereignty under the pretext of it being non-sovereign for years. After Lisbon, the EU can easily morph into Federal Europe without anyone voting for this to happen. When was it that we last voted on whether we want the federalisation of Europe to nudge further?

The Huntsman

We will settle for anything that helps to undermine the Euro Comrades and their rotten project.

Firstly the utterly undemocratic method by which these nobodies were 'elected' or 'appointed' is grist to the mill.

Secondly the fact of their being utter nobodies reveals the extent tow which Germany and France took fright at the prospect of losing control. And being nobodies reminds us of their lack of legitimacy.

Herr von Rumpy-Pumpy is, in addition, a paid-up, card-carrying member of the Euro Taleban who will undoubtedly try to push measures which will grievously inflame Eurosceptic opinion here and embarrass Dave who has recently affirmed his commitment to our membership of the EU.

As I say, all grist to the mill.

Herbert Thornton

Does not the way Rompuy and Ashton have been appointed resemble the way Mandelson has been appointed to his present office? Both Mandelson's appointment, and as Jonny points out, Ashton's appointment, were not very democratic at all.

In comparison with the Swiss, who enjoy a constitution where questions are routinely referered to the people by referenda (an entitlement that is detested by British politicians as has been demonstrated by the adamant refusal to allow a referendum on the issue of Britain's relationship with Europe) such modes of appointment to high offices are a travesty of democracy.

Indeed British Parliamentary democracy is, in a quite fundamental way, itself far from being genuinely democratic. As many constitutional experts have pointed out, the office of Prime Minister has evolved into one closely resembling that of a dictator - to the point where he certainly exercises more power than does an Americam President who is elected, albeit in a somewhat roundabout way, by the people.

But aside from the question of whether such appointments are consistent with democracy - since if they are not, they are a form of despotism - there is the question of whether the despotism is benevolent or not. And whether the despotism and its appointees are actually competent.

I know too little of Rompuy to judge him in that light, but surely, in the case of Ashton, not only is her appointment undemocratic, but the overwhelming weight of evidence is that she is neither benevolent nor competent?

Fearless Frank

Dave
November 22nd, 2009 4:08pm
Erm, Jonny, we live in a parliamentary democracy. We elect the party, not the prime minister.
So did the party elect Mr Brown? I think not!
The ignorance of the eurosceptic nutters is astounding.
Rather ill-mannered, and you're on rather shaky ground.
By the way, what does Erm mean? Do you mean ERM? I thought that went out when the Euro came in. Or maybe my ignorance is astounding.

denis cooper

I don't think I'm "conveniently" forgetting anything, Snowman.

The legal reality is that even the post-Lisbon EU will still be an international organisation established by treaty between its sovereign member states.

The legal reality is also that the national sovereignty of each member state remains intact and unimpaired, but is simply not being exercised because the politicians who are in control refuse to allow it to exercised.

So, in our case, Parliament remains the supreme legal authority for the UK.

It has delegated powers to the EU institutions through a succession of Acts to approve a succession of EU treaties, starting with the European Communities Act 1972 to approve accession to the Treaty of Rome, but it retains the legal power to repeal any all of those Acts, its own Acts, in whole or in part.

Therefore Parliament can unilaterally decide that the UK shall withdraw from the EU - a whole repeal - or it can unilaterally decide that certain EU laws will not apply within the UK - a partial repeal. Neither of those things have happened so far, simply because the MPs we elect will not countenance them..

While we continue to elect MPs who are content to see most of our laws determined in Brussels, not in Westminster, and who believe that we must remain in the EU and that we must obey every EU law however damaging, then our national sovereignty will remain intact and unimpaired but unexercised, and our national democracy will wither on the vine.

I want to see a full restoration of our national democracy; I don't want it to be gradually, stealthily, superseded by a transnational pseudo-democracy; and as a transnational election of an EU President would be inimical to national democracy I am totally opposed to it.

Far better not to encourage them to pretend that the EU is, or can ever be, run by democracy, when as an international organisation it should be run by diplomacy.

Nicholas

It's communism, Jim, but not as we used to know it.

Hysteria

@ oohkuchi

your post is incoherent. Do you deny the role of the US/UK alliance that has defended the West since 1940? I don't see too many of our European trading partners rushing to help us - (except the brave Danes and Dutch who are also spilling the blood of their young men)

If we turn our back on the strategic alliance with the US and throw in our lot with the Europeans we will indeed be doomed.

just my opinion of course - no offence meant

denis cooper

To a large extent I'd go along with Daniel Hannan's prescription for a new pan-European organisation to replace the EU.

Except that I'd go further by restoring all national vetoes, and in our case explicitly placing them at the disposal of Parliament. Unless Parliament had said "yes", the UK minister would not be empowered to say "yes"; if the UK minister nonetheless said "yes" his "yes" would be null and void, and he would be impeached by Parliament.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/6622384/Daniel-Hannan-EU-is-in-a-democratic-mess.html

"I would confine the EU's jurisdiction to matters of a clearly cross-border nature: tariff reduction, environmental pollution, mutual product recognition. The member states would retain control of everything else: agriculture and fisheries, foreign affairs and defence, immigration and criminal justice, and social and employment policy.

The European Commission could then be reduced to a small secretariat, answering to national ministers. The European Court of Justice could be replaced by a tribunal that would arbitrate trade disputes. The European Parliament could be scrapped altogether; instead, seconded national MPs might meet for a few days every month or two to keep an eye on the bureaucracy."

But of course that would mean a new and very different treaty; above all, it could not include any commitment to a process of "ever closer union".

Andy Leeds

I agree with Denis Cooper. What Parliament gives and creates, it take take away and uncreate. Personally I have grown to loath and detest the EU which to me is an embryonic fascist state. We should leave it and just trade with it as Norway does and other states. Eventually the stresses and tensions within the 'project' will destroy it. The only questions are when and if it will end with a war. I fear, upon my soul I fear it, that it will end in War.

Snowman

denis cooper @ 7.33:

kind of you to enlighten, and I bow to your superior knowledge of the subject (no irony here), but the point that the electorate should have been consulted remains valid. Also, could not the ‘not exercising’ of any full or partial repeals of EU laws hinge on practicalities? Once a member of a club, one can hardly reject any new rules that the other members agree upon. That seems to be what has been happening till now. The tendency of either of the two parties has been to flow with the EU mainstream, albeit near the tail end.

Doesn’t the Lisbon Treaty contain a provision allowing any further changes, possibly towards stronger federalization, to be ‘approved’ by a majority vote in the Council of Ministers rather than national Parliaments or, God forbid, the great unwashed in each member country?

Vulture

Every single EU state with the exception of Britain, Ireland ans Sweden has been within living memory either a Communist dictatorship, a Fascist or Nazi dictatorship or occupied by same. Democracy - even or especially in France - is an unfamiliar concept to them and a very fragile flower. Hence the unelected elevation of Rumpy-Pumpy and Baroness fourth choice thingy aka Mrs P. Kellner.
The EU is a corporate creature utterly at variance with Anglo-Saxon Parliamentary democracy ( and I speak as someone who lived in Europe for seven years). It is built on sand and doomed to failure.

Amadeus Plonquer

Why does this writer have to think that everything must be an OR decision. Why can't we dislike both the concept of the positions AND the way in which they were filled.

The truth is that the EU needs a complete rethink. Either that or change its name to the Eurovision Pong Contest.

Mark C

If they want to be bureaucrats implementing policies proposed by democratically elected politicians they need not themselves be elected. But if they are themselves initiating policies (as they will be), then they should be democratically elected and democratically accountable. Mr Korski does not seem to understand the distinction. Nor does he appear to realise that his piece demonstrates that we are not ready (if we ever will be ready) for a democractically elected EU government.

Dorothy Wilson

Mr Korski: You are being more than a little bit naive.

Dave: If eurosceptics are "nutters" where does that put the German Constitutional Court? After all, that ruled that the EU of the Lisbon Treaty did not consititute a democracy of the kind set out in the German Constitution and that the EU Parliament was little more than an expensive glass facade?

Michael

To put the article in rather fewer word, 'the EU is too big to be democratic'
That is what we proud 'Little Englanders' have been pointing out for years...

Steve Tierney

An EU President with the largest electoral mandate in the world? That's EXACTLY what I want. As long as people are free to stand as candidates.

Can you IMAGINE if the winner was an EU sceptic? Not impossible.