I'm very glad that – despite the highly reductive and provocative nature of that article – the voter turnout was the highest it has been in the last five elections.[1]
Why is the election of “far right” representatives undemocratic? This idea that people who vote for the “wrong” (read: not left or far left Socialism or Communism) are somehow a threat to democracy is ridiculous. Democracy is people voting for what they want — not voting in a way that is necessarily ideologically compatible with the chattering classes.
Democracy is people voting for what they want, sure. But that doesn't mean certain votes cannot be undemocratic. Plenty of dictators and all-in-all Really Bad People have come to power in completely democratic ways.
Abusing the system is also common: Democracy doesn't mean "immune to abuse". For example, say if I'm a dictator in a particular country that benefits immensely from throwing wrenches into democracy in Europe, I might want to spend a lot of money on intelligence attacks in Europe to push completely democratic propaganda for parties that benefit me.
And "democracy" doesn't make you immune to propaganda.
I don't know the exact context of what you're referring to here, but I think it can be seen as undemocratic to vote for parties that want to limit or abolish democratic institutions, or want to restrict who is allowed to participate in elections. While this might apply to parties at both extreme ends of the political spectrum, currently far right parties are much more popular.
I completely disagree, the EU is an imperfect project, but it is also a work in progress. If european nations want to compete with the rest of the world they have to pool their ressources and act as a block, and the EU is the only shot we have. We can be critical of the project but we must also support it
> Despite all that, the European Parliament doesn’t possess the one power that is the lifeblood of any real legislature: the power to legislate. Proposing laws is the sole privilege of the European Commission.
Maybe my understanding is lacking, but the European Commission proposes the laws, then the European Parliament together with the Council of the European Union adopts said legislation, isn't that legislative power?
Then of course they don't have the power to automatically assign those laws in member states, it's up to each member state to adopt these laws in a reasonable time-frame.
It also controls the EU budget, meaning more power. I cannot find any mentions of "budget" at all in the article.
At a glance, the article reads like a ill-researched hit piece from someone who doesn't fully understand what they're writing about.
The article even forgot to mention that EU "laws" still need to be ratified by each country's parliament, which makes the EU parliament's power even more moot.
I'm not convinced the European Parliament needs to be democratic or powerful, but that people just need to believe it is. The EU is a talking shop, but on a continent that's suffered from war so hugely keeping everyone talking is valuable.
To keep everyone talking as a group, you need institutions with enough "weight" to orchestrate it, otherwise countries will peel off, ally up, and start attacking each other over all sorts of historical gripes again. A bit more like a localized and more integrated United Nations, than an actual government, perhaps.
9 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 33.7 ms ] thread[1] https://results.elections.europa.eu/en/turnout/
Abusing the system is also common: Democracy doesn't mean "immune to abuse". For example, say if I'm a dictator in a particular country that benefits immensely from throwing wrenches into democracy in Europe, I might want to spend a lot of money on intelligence attacks in Europe to push completely democratic propaganda for parties that benefit me.
And "democracy" doesn't make you immune to propaganda.
Maybe my understanding is lacking, but the European Commission proposes the laws, then the European Parliament together with the Council of the European Union adopts said legislation, isn't that legislative power?
Then of course they don't have the power to automatically assign those laws in member states, it's up to each member state to adopt these laws in a reasonable time-frame.
It also controls the EU budget, meaning more power. I cannot find any mentions of "budget" at all in the article.
At a glance, the article reads like a ill-researched hit piece from someone who doesn't fully understand what they're writing about.
To keep everyone talking as a group, you need institutions with enough "weight" to orchestrate it, otherwise countries will peel off, ally up, and start attacking each other over all sorts of historical gripes again. A bit more like a localized and more integrated United Nations, than an actual government, perhaps.