Much of the UK’s referendum debate has focused on the extent to which EU decision-making is democratic, with the European Commission a source of particular criticism from leave campaigners on the basis that it is unelected. Simon Hix writes that while there are legitimate problems with the EU’s system of democracy, there is little to justify the idea that the EU is run by unelected bureaucrats, and the procedures in place for appointing the Commission are now far more democratic than they were in the past.
A popular claim by many supporters of the Leave campaign is that the EU is run by ‘unelected bureaucrats’. How much truth is there behind that claim?
This claim mainly refers to the EU Commission: the EU’s executive body. It is true that the Commission President and the individual Commissioners are not directly elected by the peoples of Europe. So, in that sense, we cannot “throw the scoundrels out”. It is also true that under the provisions of the EU treaty, the Commission has the sole right to propose EU legislation, which, if passed, is then binding on all the EU member states and the citizens of these member states.
But, that’s not the end of the story. First, the Commission’s power to propose legislation is much weaker than it at first seems. The Commission can only propose laws in those areas where the EU governments have unanimously agreed to allow it to do under the EU treaty. Put another way, the Commission can only propose EU laws in areas where the UK government and the House of Commons has allowed it to do so.
Also, ‘proposing’ is not the same as ‘deciding’. A Commission proposal only becomes law if it is approved by both a qualified-majority in the EU Council (unanimity in many sensitive areas) and a simple majority in the European Parliament. In practice this means that after the amendments adopted by the governments and the MEPs, the legislation usually looks very different to what the Commission originally proposed. In this sense, the Commission is much weaker than it was in the 1980s, when it was harder to amend its proposals in the Council and when the European Parliament did not have amendment and veto power.
Part of the misunderstanding about the power of the Commission perhaps stems from a comparison with the British system of government. Unlike the British government, which commands a majority in the House of Commons, the Commission does not command an in-built majority in the EU Council or the European Parliament, and so has to build a coalition issue-by-issue. This puts the Commission in a much weaker position in the EU system than the British government in the UK system.
Second, the Commission President and the Commissioners are indirectly elected. Under Article 17 of the EU treaty, as amended by the Lisbon Treaty, the Commission President is formally proposed by the European Council (the 28 heads of government of the EU member states), by a qualified-majority vote, and is then ‘elected’ by a majority vote in the European Parliament. In an effort to inject a bit more democracy into this process, the main European party families proposed rival candidates for the Commission President before the 2014 European Parliament elections. Then, after the centre-right European People’s Party (EPP) won the most seats in the new Parliament, the European Council agreed to propose the EPP’s candidate: Jean-Claude Juncker.
The problem in Britain, though, is that this new way of ‘electing’ the Commission President did not feel very democratic. None of the main British parties are in the EPP (the Conservatives left the EPP in 2009), and so British voters were not able to vote for Juncker (although they could vote against him). There was also very little media coverage in the UK of the campaigns between the various candidates for the Commission President, so few British people understand how the process worked (unlike in some other member states). But, we can hardly blame the EU for the Conservatives leaving the EPP or for our media failing to cover the Commission President election campaign!
Then, once the Commission President is chosen, each EU member state nominates a Commissioner, and each Commissioner is then subject to a hearing in one of the committees of the European Parliament (modelled on US Senate hearings of US Presidential nominees to the US cabinet). If a committee issues a ‘negative opinion’ the candidate is usually withdrawn by the government concerned. After the hearings, the team of 28 is then subject to an up/down ‘investiture vote’ by a simple majority of the MEPs.
Finally, once invested, the Commission as a whole can be removed by a two-thirds ‘censure vote’ in the European Parliament. This has never happened before, but in 1999 the Santer Commission resigned before a censure vote was due to be taken which they were likely to lose. So, yes, the Commission is not directly elected. But it is not strictly true to say that it is ‘unelected’ or unaccountable.
And, in many ways, the way the Commission is now chosen is similar to the way the UK government is formed. Neither the British Prime Minister nor the British cabinet are ‘directly elected’. Formally, in House of Commons elections, we do not vote on the choice for the Prime Minister, but rather vote for individual MPs from different parties. Then, by convention, the Queen chooses the leader of the largest party in the House of Commons to form a government. This is rather like the European Council choosing the candidate of the political group with the most seats in the European Parliament to become the Commission President.
Then, after the Prime Minister is chosen, he or she is free to choose his or her cabinet ministers. There are no hearings of individual ministerial nominees before committees of the House of Commons, and there is no formal investiture vote in the government as a whole. From this perspective, the Commissioners and the Commission are more scrutinised and more accountable than British cabinet ministers.
So, it is easy to claim that the EU is run by ‘unelected bureaucrats’, but the reality is quite a long way from that. Although, having said that, I would be one of the first to acknowledge that the EU does not feel as democratic as it could or should be – as I have spent much of my academic career writing about this issue. But, this is perhaps more to do with the stage of development of the EU than because of the procedures that are now in place for choosing and removing the Commission, which are far more ‘democratic’ than they were 5 or 10 years ago.
Please read our comments policy before commenting.
Note: This article gives the views of the author, and not the position of EUROPP – European Politics and Policy, nor of the London School of Economics.
Shortened URL for this post: http://bit.ly/28JEThz
_________________________________
Simon Hix – LSE
Simon Hix is Harold Laski Professor of Political Science at the London School of Economics and Political Science.
Another factor (in France, but it may apply to UK as well), is that media never ever talked about EU elections. And that gives a strong feeling that “they are not elected”.
It is very much the case here. A big part of the EU being run by faceless unelected Eurocrats shtick so popular with those who wish to leave is that our media have worked to keep us ignorant of who they are
Beyond Farage and and his attention grabbing cronies antics, most people have no idea who their MEPs are, let alone who sits on the commission or which power blocks exist within the parliament. It suits our media to keep us in the dark as it means when they decide to make shit up about some crazy new EU regulation they are unlikely to be challenged on the veracity of their claims and it sells well
This is somewhat misleading:
“the Commission can only propose EU laws in areas where the UK government and the House of Commons has allowed it to do so”
Under Jacques Delors, the Commission extended its remt, citing “catch all” clauses in the Single European Act.
UK Ministers challenged these interpretations but were over-ruled by the European Court.
In short the “system” ratchets towards integration / harmonisation / standardisation / federation.
So many UK observers of the EU do NOT feel that “the HoC has allowed it to do so” rather there has been a stealthy, incremental power grab by the EU.
I attended a talk in West Sussex yesterday by Georgina Downs, Pesticides Campaigner.
Read more here about her Campaign https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/jul/07/georgina-downs-pesticides.
At the end of the talk Georgina mentioned the EU Referendum.
I think it would be useful for the author of this article to meet Georgina to chat about her perspective of democracy in the UK and EU. Georgina has direct knowledge of how democracy operates in the EU through the various structures and she mentioned the situation regarding her Campaign has worsened because of Juncker.
As a campaigner myself I was interested in Georgina’s comment that it is our own Government lobbying the EU for weaker pesticide regulations which generally backs up observations made by Corporate Europe Observatory and the New Economics Foundation:
http://corporateeurope.org/economy-finance/2016/06/how-cameron-delivered-victories-big-finance
I feel that many will be voting on Thursday without even having an inkling of some of the issues that they need to be aware of (including myself). Georgina did mention that there is no abstention option on Thursday.
I have an interest in GM food regulation as an ordinary member of the public and much of what Georgina said I can relate to the GM “story”:
http://agroecology-appg.org/event/appg-meeting-the-science-of-genetically-engineered-foods/
http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/news/biotech-ambassadors-diplomacy-or-marketing
Georgina also made some interesting comments about NGOs and pesticides.
Much of the focus and good works of NGOs has been in alerting the voting public on the perils of the Trade Deals but whilst doing this some NGOs on both sides of the Atlantic have been unable to keep their eye on the GM regulation ball, for whatever reason i.e. meanwhile the US have been reviewing their GM regulations and in London there have been several outrageous, largely ignored Inquiries.
I am still undecided on how to vote on Thursday (remain or abstain) but reinforced by the reminder from Georgina (Guardian article: “the decision by the court of appeal to overturn the judgement was “bizarre” and a “public health scandal”) about the state of “democracy” in this country, despite ALL the shortcomings of the EU, I could not bring myself to vote OUT.
“…From this perspective, the Commissioners and the Commission are more scrutinised and more accountable than British cabinet ministers.”
Perhaps in addition to a discussion on democracy, we really need to concentrate on that thin line between mismanagement and corruption and attempt to start some problem solving and improve the situation for those whose situation is so dire:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTpIdg8Q-gQ
http://www.europeforpeace.org.uk/reforms/
https://newint.org/blog/2014/01/16/eu-banks-city-in-it-together/
http://www.truth-out.org/progressivepicks/item/34912-illicit-surveillance-and-the-deep-state-an-interview-with-mike-lofgren
Thank you.
I need to read this article again, the public understands so little about how their own Parliament and the EU works so thank you for the article.
NB
So stay away from fields while crops are being sprayed, Apparently there are EU laws in place to protect you but no one takes any notice of them.
Please sign Georgina’s petition:
https://www.change.org/p/the-prime-minister-rt-hon-david-cameron-mp-ban-all-crop-spraying-of-poisonous-pesticides-near-our-homes-schools-and-playgrounds
Think twice about your choice of cooking oil. Apparently there are EU laws in place to protect your right to choose what you eat but your Government takes no notice of them.
http://www.toxicsoy.org/toxicsoy/impact.html
http://www.gmfreeze.org/actions/9/
I am a little confused as to this EU democracy idea and maybe someone could explain to me just in a democratically run election for an EU Commission President, Junker was the only name on the ballot paper because to me that does not look nor sound very democratic to me and I suspect he was very confident in winning that one.
Also as far as unelected is concerned nearly all of those who are in positions of power with this EU idealism had already been democratically rejected in the own nation countries, I would say that makes them very much unelected.
you may not have followed the european parliament election, but the 3 main groupings (EPP, socialists and liberals) each put one candidate on the ballot box.
respectively, Juncker, Schultz and Verhofstadt
since both the british media and political establishment decided to completely ignore the issue, they have only to blame themselves if they then awake with a popularly elected Commission president (or whine like sore losers that they never voted for Juncker)
Manuel Barosso was the only name put forward when electing the President of the European Parliament, one of five presidents needed to run the European Union ; how does the USA muddle through with just the one.
That is the same as any other Parliamentary system, such as the one in the UK. You elect MPs who are members of a Political Party, you do not elect person who is selected by the party to lead it.
In the UK election, political parties pick a person they want to lead them and become Prime Minister.
In the EU election, political parties pick a person they want to lead them and become Commission President.
In the UK election, the UK citizens votes for their local MP.
In the EU election, the EU citizens votes for their local MEP.
The UK party with the most seats in the UK parliament gets the first chance to have their leader became Prime Minister and pick Cabinet Ministers.
The EU party with the most seats in the EU parliament gets the first chance to have their leader become Commission President and pick Commissioners.
This is what happened with Commission President Juncker, he is a member of the European People’s Party (EPP) because they got most MEPs.
ABC you don’t know what you are talking about.Junckers is a Commissioner appointed by his own government, not an MEP. They merely had a vote to confirm his election.
It’s certainly not like the UK parliament. Can’t propose or enact legislation. Most items any vote they do have can be overruled by the council who enact legislation. There are several areas they don’t get to vote on.
The president of the European Parliament is Antonio Tajani. The President of the European Council is Donald Tusk. Presidency of the Council of the European Union is currently held by an Estonian, Juri Ratas. From January it will be held by a Bulgarian.Junckers is the president of the European Commission.
Cameron specifically tried to block Junckers’ election because he is known to have anti-British opinions. He failed!
I think it is a principal-agent problem. If we extend the chain of delegation in decision-making we are eroding the power of the principal as the agent loses on (more direct) accountability. And this is the problem of European Union (and intergovernmental organisations more in general). For a voter it is easier to control a national politician using its vote as a weapon. But decision making at the European level (and within other IOs) is more dependent on intergovernmental diplomacy than on democratic representation. Democratic representation is inevitably affected as politicians with national mandates need to tone down their national interest to accommodate decision making at the intergovernmental level. As Rodrik said, you can’t have integration, sovereignty and democracy all at the same time. You have to comprise on something. British people have compromised on integration. Does it sound reasonable?
But where is my agency in wanting to get the the UK and my surrounding neighbours like Ireland, France, Netherlands and Belgium to do something that I politically believe without resorting to self-harming economic sanctions, dangerous military intervention or sometimes ineffectual diplomacy? If I believe Russian influence on Eastern Europe is damaging to Europe and ultimately the UK, how much more easier is to exercise agency and vote in the EU Parliament that can actually pass laws along with EU Council to ensure Poland or Hungary is upholding Liberal Democratic principles? What if the UK Labour party are in Government and strikes a deal with the EU on tackling terrorism that I disagree with but nevertheless I agree with most of its domestic agenda? My only sure method of changing direction on this new UK-EU terrorism deal is to vote out my national government. Over one single issue, despite agreeing with it on pretty much everything else! Now my ability to exercise agency is limited.
But with the UK in the EU, I am able to vote for UK Labour on British issues but then vote perhaps UK Conservatives MEPs to influence a more right-wing approach on more wide-ranging issues like a European approach to a security threat like islamist and right-wing terrorism. So you see, having the UK and EU deal with policies at a British and European level can actually enhance my ability to express myself politically much better. This is why some people like myself love devolution because things that concern me for London are not exactly the same as they will be for the UK. London is suffering from terrible environmental issues and housing shortages. I was able to vote the Labour Mayor because of his housing pledge and a Green Assembly member because of their strong record of environmentalism.
Having votes at different levels of government, London, United Kingdom and European Union gives the voter like me greater control on the political direction of those who govern on my behalf. Leaving the EU will not give me more control over UK-EU deals.
I’m not knowledgeable enough to judge but I find your opinion well reasoned and intelligent on this matter. Best regards from an eastern European citizen where dangerous, primitive and anti-European nationalism and populism are in arise…
It fails to mention that the Commissioners are supposed to be independant from the States, but are still “proposed” by the States… some of which were Ministers in their country of origin. I say “proposed” because really they are much more elected by their country of origin than proposed: the only soon-to-be Commissioner that has ever received a negative vote from the Parliament was Rocco Buttiglione, a close friend of Silvio Berlusconi, who would have been in charge of the Justice Portfolio and declared in front of the Parliament: “I may think homosexuality is a sin, but this has no effect on politics unless I say homosexuality is a crime”. Many of them should never have been elected Commissioners (google Neelie kroes for instance).
Also, the fact that the Commission has become slightly more democratic over the years does not mean that it is sufficiently democratic.
Finally, Jean-Claude Juncker is the former Prime Minister from tax-heaven Luxemburg, has been involved in the Luxleaks affair, arrives drunk at meetings and followed José Manuel Barroso, suspected of bribery. I’d say not directly electing this kind of person is a bit of a problem to say the least.
I am a convinced Europhile, but this kind of blind Europhilism is quite annoying.
Thank you so much for an enlightening article. Why was this not made clear before the referendum. The issue of control was very important to leave voters who have obviously been totally misled by people with alternative agendas.
Europe is too diverse to have one size fits all legislation and policies . The countries are so different in economies , culture , customs and languages , this policy is the easy way out for idle incompetent politicians .
Added to which the citizens voices and demands are masked out from the Commission and Parliament , and this is the reason why many no longer want the EU , but maybe take the EEC back
Politicians do not want the EEC back as many will lose power and influence , and EU politicians will also lose pensions etc etc
I wonder if a better analogy for the comission would be the British Civil Service, compared to which it has a similar mandate yet far greater transparency, accountability and democratic election?
Simon Hix mentions the spitzenkandidaten idea and how the UK public chose to ignore it. Did he mention the part where the two front runners (yet again) made a backroom deal to share the power and give each other the two “elected” posts – European Comission Presidence and European Parliament Presidency. And let us not forget Guy Verhofstadt, that enfant terrible, radical EU “federalist” whose decentralising reforms in Belgium led to a region of 4 million people potentially tanking an EU treaty for the rest. He had no issues joining in the Grand Coalition.
The lack of any genuine competition between political actors at the EU level is what makes it undemocratic.
“And let us not forget Guy Verhofstadt, that enfant terrible, radical EU “federalist” whose decentralising reforms in Belgium led to a region of 4 million people potentially tanking an EU treaty for the rest.”
Another word for this is “democracy” or “sovereignty”. What actually happened in the end, as many people predicted, is the concerns in Wallonia were taken on board and there was a compromise. I’ve never quite understood why Eurosceptics keep holding this up as an example of the ills of the EU when it reflects precisely the respect for the sovereignty of nation states (and regions) that they supposedly care so much about in the first place.
You look young Simon Hix, obviously too young to have heard a comment made by Jean Monnet in 1952…although you may have read it since. However, if you have then you would not have added certain comments to your article. The following comment is not verbatim because I can’t remember word for word, but the gist of what Monnet said was that the EU must eventually become a Federation of United States of Europe with a centralised government, a single currency and a sole judiciary controlling all the people within the membership countries. This was to be established, however long it took, so that the people did not realise it was happening. The various treaties over the last 60 years (from the Rome treaty in 1957 to the Lisbon Treaty in 2009) have all led to a greater political integration of the EU. The idea of having an unelected commission of politicians stemmed from a desire that never again should any country of Europe be allowed to vote in another leader such as Hitler. Commendable thinking, impractical in reality. Why? because of the diverse culture and ever widening culture of the people within the EU. Already we have seen Muslims denouncing the laws of the EU countries they reside in and suggesting they will only abide by their own Sharia law. We have seen countries such as Poland and the Czech Republic denouncing laws introduced by the EU and being threatened by the EU with penalties if they do. We have seen countries such as France and Germany ignoring EU laws, when they are not in their interests. But let me take you up on the point in your article that I wished to illustrate by means of a self contradictory comment from yourself. You say in one paragraph, ‘It is also true that under the provisions of the EU treaty, the Commission has the sole right to propose EU legislation, which, if passed, is then binding on all the EU member states and the citizens of these member states.’ Then in another you say, ‘The Commission can only propose laws in those areas where the EU governments have unanimously agreed to allow it to do under the EU treaty. ‘ This isn’t strictly true is it? The MEP’s propose legislative measures (in which Britain has been outvoted on, on numerous occasions) and the Commission then enact them with no opposition whatsoever. There is no one who can stop the Commission from introducing a law and all countries (as you have rightly said) are bound by treaty to accept them. Heath’s 1971 White Paper on entry had promised no “erosion of essential national sovereignty”. This, as many have conceded, was quite untrue: European law did and does override British law, and more and more of it has come down the tracks from Brussels ever since. Britain has had no less that 55000 EU laws put into UK legislation since 1973, with no way of opposing them!
“Britain has had no less that 55000 EU laws put into UK legislation since 1973, with no way of opposing them!”
Other than, you know, the EU’s legislative process, which allowed the UK to oppose them.
“There is no one who can stop the Commission from introducing a law and all countries (as you have rightly said) are bound by treaty to accept them”
The Commission proposes legislation, if the Council (or in most cases the European Parliament) votes down the legislation then it doesn’t come into force. What you’ve said here is the single biggest misunderstanding British Eurosceptics suffer from: the idea that the Commission can just dictate laws and national states are powerless to oppose them. It’s frightening that we had a referendum on this topic and yet you still see people coming out with this complete bunkum on a regular basis.
So where does the UK stand are we better off in the EU or out of the EU seeing as MSM ignored and did not give us the info when EU voting was happening before the referendum.
You make a valiant attempt to put as favourable a gloss on the situation as you can but clearly the answer to your question in yes.
Leaders of party’s and thus Prime Ministers are put forward by other MPs and then EVERY MEMBER OF THAT PARTY VOTES.
I’d think a Professor of political science might actually know that.