Look up the round table of european industrialists. They're a very important lobbying institution that's part of the official EU institutions, and they have a big hand in the process of passing laws, since they often propose drafts to the commission. There's the same thing with banks and the ECB as well. It's no wonder that people say the EU is undemocratic when a person like Draghi can go from Goldman Sachs to ECB president to Italian President all organized through backdoor deals...
I felt this. The video seems to argue that the 'idea' of the EU is not undemocratic - fair. The question is how that idea is put into practice and the execution. The example you give is an excellent crystallization of the technocratic nature of the EU. One doesn't even need to go far to hear relevant EU criticism - termed "EU bashing" in the video. Yanis Varoufakis can give his two cents on how the ECB and finance hold more sway over decision making in practice than the rosy idea leads on to. I guess that's what's termed as a "democratic deficiency" instead of what it is; plutocracy.
I would like to inform you that your comment has not gathered a like from the European Union channel and did not warrant a response. They don't want to hear dissenting views here. Not as if they gave you the option to vote whether or not you wanted to be in the EU in the first place.
Let's look at a glaring example, the EU-Hungarian debate. Did the union take out a loan to cover the post-Covid economic downturn? YES. Did the member states, including Hungary, participate in this as debtors? YES. Was the distribution of the loan subject to conditions in the case of other countries? NO. Poland was also blackmailed by the union because there was also a patriotic government. Now that there was a change of government there, everything is forgiven for the Poles. The other countries also received the money. In the case of Hungary, the loan taken by the country was tied to false and extortionate conditions. Despite this, the Hungarians tried to fulfill all conditions. This was also accepted by the leadership of the union, which is why the committee authorized the payment of 10 billion with great difficulty but still, because there was nothing else they could do. On this the EU-Parlament contested this and yesterday sued the Commission for how they dared to give money to Hungary. But that's not enough. This week it was announced that Hungary will not receive the remaining 20 billion at all, because the Hungarian laws do not allow minors (school children and kindergarteners in preschool age) to be educated in an LGBTQ-spirit. The Hungarians said that they are in no way willing to change their position on this issue, even if they even if they don't get their due money.
Hungary should have never bin part of the EU its way to corrupt, they should have stayed with their friends white-russia and Putin's Russia. It has very little to do with LGBTQ+ spirit and way more to do about the corruption like the political influence on its judicial system.
In my opinion one of the most problematic things within the EU is the need to get unanimously decisions by all countries. I understand the idea (which isn't a bad one by itself), but it basically boils down to important decisions being blocked by the vetos of one or more countries (it's the same with the UN security council). If we find a way to improve this decision making process, the EU might be able to turn around the situation and become more prosperous again. If not I fear either a dragging degeneration into nothingness or a sudden implosion...
It made sense at the time it was implemented, as states may have been shy or too concerned that their decisions could be overrun, virtually affecting their sovereignty. But now that EU, for the large part has demonstrated it's a willingness to cooperate, such as through the Euro crisis, I think it's high time to do away with the system as well. It can still be a majority (maybe 80% approval) but having Hungary block the rest of the EU on something because he jerry-mandered the election results and can now unanimously make decisions is pretty absurd.
But unlike the UN, the EU only allows entry to countries which align with values and are open/free/democratic. Also through article 7 there is the option to revoke voting rights to countries which regress (please, correct me if I'm wrong on this, I don't know this clause well) The requirement of unanimous decisions means any laws which are passed have full support and commitment of the entire bloc. A qualified majority system would risk dragging members into policies they don't like without even listening to or attempting to fix their objections. This risks sowing resentment and creating fractures in the system (think of how states in the US squabble over anything and everything passed by the federal government) I understand the issue of Hungary is hot on everyone's minds, but in my opinion the longevity of the bloc is more important than some laws being blocked in the short term. I don't think the EU needs to be, or should be for that matter, as nimble a body as a national government.
They just got rid of borders and threw countries into one big union without letting them even vote on it. Then they ask if what they constructed is democratic? A pathetic question. Further, try becoming president of the EU or holding any high office without being fully behind the "European cause".
The difference with other institutions is that the national leaders we send there represent our voice and almost nothing is legally binding if we do not agree. In EU it is mostly large countries like Germany that decide regardless of what our local politicians say since they have so many votes.
You seem to have forgotten that the people who do elect the European Commission are the leaders from all member states. Making it very democratic. The majority also want to remove the veto power because of the issues it brings.
@@uqs57bju And the fact that the EC is elected by the leaders from all member states makes it very democratic how? Don't forget the fact that those same leaders forced the EU and euro on to us with false promises and without any vote or binding referendum.
@@maboelnreads yes 💯🔥 exactly unelected 💶 European commission can veto any law they don't like " suit 😔 their vision to keep them employed 😕 ?? This vision is not 🚫 my interest ?? So we can veto it 😉 !!
The biggest problem for democratic legitimacy is the Council of the European Union. Why, you wonder? It's actually quite straight forward and simple: The Council is comprised of EU heads of state, which have an executive role on the national level. However, on the EU level - i.e. in the Council - they are hold legislative power, which which means they can _pass_ laws. A function, that should only be reserved for parliaments. So you end up with the strange situation, that when a law is rather unpopular with national parliaments, they can bring the European Commission (which was appointed by the very same heads of state) to introduce a law on which they themselves then vote on. The only safety here is the EU parliament, which luckily got more and more power over the years. But it still is democratically problematic when the same people wield executive and legislative power at the same time albeit on two different levels. Anyways, rant end. //
wrong. council of the european union is comprised of MINISTERS, the european council is made of the heads of state. the european council has NO LEGISLATIVE POWER!!
Democracy in Belgium: over 40% of the population voted for a far right winged and a center right winged party, so a center-right government yet we got a center-left coalition of 7 parties with the least votes and a prime minister from one of those parties.
the EU is not anti democratic offcourse, neither is the comission allpowerfull but there are still very serious issues the use of an informal French education system as a basis for employment in the EU is an issue, you can easily check the site of the Europacollege to find out that it is far from ideologically diverse, personal accounts from students even stating that they are to either accept a specific ideological view or get out. (which is ofcourse also the main complaint towards the neoliberal advocates regarding international relations in general) the issue of the constitution, in essence the EU cheated in a defacto constitution due to the failure to get all members on board with a formal one, I am sure it is clear how this could be a problem given that most people are not even aware of this or in fact that whilst 85% of the national legislation is EU legislation most people have no idea at all. These are in fact twin issues. When it comes to democracy itsself I would say that it is BARELY democratic, representative democracy is supposed to be us electing the people that represent us not us representing the people who select the people who select the people that wil represent us. It is perfectly reasonable to expect the commission members (who defacto do constitute one per member state) to be elected trough national elections in every member state, instead they are chosen by the counsil, proposed (as an undivisible package) to parliament who can only decide yay or nay and if nay they simply restructure it, negotiate on the side a bit and it comes for parliament again and again, relatively speaking I would NOT call that democracy. in fact the US at least hold semi formal referenda on certain key issues on the ballot, (they should essentially be binding but corruption and "interpretation" can and often do mess with that) I am pro EU as an idea, but not this weird state in which it exists, Make it a proper confederacy, reduce it's authorities on the national scale of countries, similarly to how the US operates regarding states and federal government but give it quasi all and exclusive authority over external matters, (also includes matters between member states ofcourse, (foodsafety for instance)) I don't mind formally becoming a state, but it has to include proper democracy, we can base ourselves in large part on our American allies but in line with Riccardo's law we can actually escape some of the major issues with the US.
But, Right wing politics is right about the people need in national sovereignity and freedom of choice. EU sucks in forcing europians to become one nation with one politics, one law, even one language. We do not need that, we do not want that. EU should be that it supose to be - the union of friendly free and sovereign states, with cooperation in economics and military defence, BUT not more. I am voting for no EU federation, no one law, no one politics, no directives from Brusel, no intervenience to national law and national goals.
Lol, our politicians say'd the same in 2001. The EU would only serve our defense and leave our sovereignty in tact. The benefits would outweigh the costs. I guess those outweighing benefits go to the politicians that get a job in Brussels.
While there are appointed people in top posts and there are political groupings where politicians do not represent citizens of their countries , although the politicians were elected by the citizens of their country , there is and will never be democracy
In 2001 our leaders promised that all though we be part of the EU we would keep our own sovereignty and decision making, we would never accept laws being pushed from an EU political government. We only joined and needed the EU to form 1 military power and thus create a superpower out of the EU. 23 years later we are all screwed by Brussels laws and still no step closer to unify all the different military powers in the EU.
THE UK HAD BEEN IN THE EU DECADES I CAN ONLY REMEMBER VOTING ON THE EU ONCE WAS TO GO IN AND THE OTHER TIME DECADES LATER TO COME OUT ,THANK GOD WE GOT OUT .
The fact most member states refused to ask theie citizens if you wanted to join, and the few who did ignored the outcome of the referendums till they got a positive result. The EU ignored 3 referendums that rejected the EU consitution and changed the legal definition from a "constitution" to an "treaty" so they coulg ignore the outcomes anf force it through as the Lisbon Treaty says enough. The EU is different theny other force from the past who tried to conquer Europe, the fact most of its founding fathers were hight ranked Nazi's & fascist also say enough. Not to mention that the parlement has no power, they dont have the "right of initiative (cant make their own proposals & agenda) and both the EU Commission and the European council can reject every voting outcome of the parlement till they are satisfied with the result. And the list goes on, but sadly there we have two generation of braindwashed people who werent their went everything went down.
One pretty important thing to remember on the topic of the european parliament is also that, while the parliament does not have the power to propose most laws, it does not only have the power to refuse the appointment of the commission, but also to VOTE THE COMISSION (or even single commissars) OUT OF OFFICE. As such, the comission has little ability to NOT propose legislation the parliament wants proposed, at least if it wants to stay where it is.
@@superjmm12345 The Commission can propose Laws. Commissars and a President form the Commission. The Parliament can remove the Commissars by voting. In thus if the Parliament wants a certain piece of Legislation very urgent, it can "threaten" the Commission with a Vote of no Confidence if this is refused. The Parliament can not propose legislation, that is something only the Commission can do. In Theory if the Commission refuses to propose it the Parliament can not change it, but as explained has the Power to "threaten" the Commission.
Most people don't even vote in the European elections bc they don't understand them. Voter turnout has been higher for national elections, but the EU will just dictate what they do then anyway.
I think you missed an important point: that public debate, a hallmark of democratic societes, is not carried EU-wide but only within nations. There are no newspapers or TV shows which are consumed across the EU, and people often have no idea how topics are being discussed even in their neighbor nations. This is astonoshing to me: Germany alone spends 8 billion Euro pa on public broadcasting, so it would be easy to have just one or two TV channels which broadcast news across the EU in different languages. Somehow they choose not to do that
Please tell: when has the queen ever imposed a law on the people? She's a cultural figure head, not a politician. She can bask in her riches all she like, so long as she doesn't tread on me.
@@mr.alarak2587 Yes, and the only people in the EU allowed to propose the creation or repealing of laws, are those no one has a vote for. That's a lot less democratic than a flawed voting system where everyone gets a vote.
@@Pax.Britannica If you don't live in Uxbridge or South Ruislip you haven't voted for Boris Johnson either. Sure you could have voted conservative and the representatives voted for Boris Johnson ... and that is EXACTLY how it works in the EU.
@@buddy1155 My comments mentioned only the lack of political power the queen has, and the fact that the only people allowed to propose laws in the EU, are the unelected with loyalties to the EU above their nation. I never mentioned the fact that the British or EU parliament's are representational democracies, nor have I criticised that. But as far as your comment goes, your logic is flawed. Proposing a bill is in the power of any member of parliament, whether part of the ruling party or opposition. Thus, the voter always has the means of coercing his representative into proposing any bill the voter desires. And the representatives of all other voters can then vote on that bill. Whereas the EU, has only one direction. And that's down stream. The inevitable destination those most likely to be offered a place in the council, who are most likely those who lost their election, are most likely to want to see the EU head. And that's the polar opposite of what the voters want. As they only need to get lucky once, and that's permanent, the voter needs to get lucky however many times to council decides to propose the same bill.
You know the amount of Belgian politicians that leave the national politics of Belgium to retire to the EU is a running joke. Guy Verhofstadt, Didier Reynders, Kris Peeters, Charles Michel etc are unable to get re-elected in their country of origin due to bad governance are PR fiasco’s.
Your video quality has definitely improved from more basic videos to more elaborate ones with well-developed answers, which I couldn't find on other channels(with channels focusing on the EU as few as they already are). Keep up the great work!
My personal preference would be a combination of the Swiss and the US model, where there would be a council of x amount of ministers that together head the executive like in Switzerland and a chairman of this Council that would act as a tie braker and as president for the EU like the president in the US. This way you get the spreading of power from the Swiss and the head of state that can be a person to point to for the population if something is good or bad, and gives the tie braker so that decisions can be made faster and more efficiently.
In practice, neither scenario gives regular people power or autonomy. What I've come to realize is that democracy is a state of mind, a feeling, nothing more. As far as a system, it's not really different when it comes to the most influential or important decisions.
So: actually do actual politics to decide the grand landscapr and don't just debate the moralty of issues to decide which of the two parties is the worst option
people are really bad at voting for the eu parliament. I think the EU could do a lot better at actually promoting direct democracy and civic polls. The eu is too messy
If we're going to have more direct democracy, a lot more of the public are going to have to be involved in what's going on in politics and being informed on what they are voting on. A democracy is only as good as the people in it, in other words, the people actually turning up to vote and actually voting on facts, being informed about how things are and not how they want to see things. A badly inform public can actually be worse for a democracy, just look at the UK and US over the last 5 years to see that.
@@skillbopster No one likes direct democracy. You don't either, you just don't know it yet. There is a reason why representative democracy is the most common form.
@@paul1979uk2000 how do you get informed about facts? I didn't vote because i could not find the facts about the EU political party's, except that they are mostly formed from locally failed politicians. And that they like all political party's lie and promise heaven for a vote. And all promises are forgotten after the election time.
The content on this channel is so good. There's nothing like this online. The closet thing is TLDR Europe but they are more news-focused and not EU mechanics-focused. Production value just need to go up a bit with a bit better animation and visual effects, although these are a good start (such as the speech bubbles that pop up and what not with a bit of humor). You need a bit of polishing with some skill, and then of course get Nord VPN to "sponsor" you so now you sound legit haha.
Europe should look at Switzerland. Not directly copying their system, but developing a bit in that direction. Also it obviously needs to stay a fair bit more decentralized than the US. I don’t see a proper EU army or similar anytime soon. In many areas it’s efforts will stay coordinating.
"Is the EU undemocratic?" Yes. Yes it is. The fact is that the law-making body of the EU - the commission - is not democratically elected. That's all you really need to know. The rest of it doesn't matter. The whole point of a democracy is legislation by popular sovereignty. The EU doesn't have that, ergo it isn't democratic.
Good MEME for the Great Britain. Future of their Science and Education Sector are going into Gray Troubling Clouds. Less funds from the EU into their Projects, maybe less Cooperation with the EU. Tier models which could be found in here could be a choice.
Its bad design that the EU election and the governmental elections are not aligned. This decreases the participation in the election, increases the cost of keeping the election, and sometimes makes weird artifacts, where the EU representatives of a country are working against the country's government. I would also argue that there needs to be a way to call back a representative, at the request of their country / party.
I greatly appreciate your organization of potential deficiencies while acknowledging that the EU is still quite democratic. This was quite coherent, and although I knew of these problems, having them outlined like this was valuable. I just want to express my thoughts with these 4 problems you brought up. 1. Indirect Election of Commission. Certainly not a direct electoral mechanism. Heads of state hold most power in process. But this is not necessarily bad. Since this post was created out of compromise, the current appointment is useful to represent the EU. And voters are represented proportionally in parliament instead of through 1 person. Which avoids the great spectacle that occurs in the US. However it might result in lower legitimacy and centralized authority in commission. I think this was intentional in creation of this post. 2. only commission can propose laws. I think this was a compromise to conservatives in Lisbon treaty so that the EU is not continuously adopting new legislation. However it is clear that if there is a will for legislation at the council that it will be proposed but not similarly at the parliament. Therefore I think that the parliament should have some limited amount of legislative initiative. 3. Low turnout This is indeed a serious problem to be addressed. As seen in the US a low voter turnout is an indicator of unhealthy democracy, or a voter's belief that their vote doesn't hold as much value as time the time investment to vote. There are 2 general approaches to improve this. Either by increasing the competencies of the parliament. Or by increasing voter awareness (in EU unity and effect of voting). 4. Unequal Parliament Representation This was adopted as a compromise to smaller states. I think it is also important to mention here that at the council a Qualified Majority Voting (QMV) system is often used, that requires 65% of pop & 55% of states to agree on adoption of a motion. This has a similar element of compromise between smaller and larger states. I think that the QMV system is an improvement from the unanimity requirement that gave each state a veto power. Similarly I think that the parliament can be improved by having some MEPs elected through an EU wide election of universal suffrage with proportional representation, this would give every vote in EU equal power. Suppose that a third of MEPs are elected like this, then the representation would be somewhat rectified. Overall I am curious as to how your commentary & analysis will proceed. I hope my thoughts may have helped spark new ideas.
Thanks for this very detailed comment. This is indeed great input for one of my next videos on how a future EU could look like. Some initial thoughts to your points: 1. I am not necessarily in favour of a direct electoral mechanism either, especially because of the polarization it could cause within the union (e.g. US). However, the parliament could have a bigger role here. In 2019, the parliament shortlisted potential candidates for the EC presidency (Weber, Timmermans, Vestager). The European Council then politely ignored these candidates and chose a completely different candidate. Sure, the Parliament still has to vote and approve, but considering that the parliament is directly voted upon by the people, these shortlisted candidates (the spitzenkandidat concept) should be taken more seriously. 2. Agree. And this is also where it is heading towards. The parliament can already make legislation recommendations to the EC, but it just not legally binding to be iniated. 3. I honestly think that the EU does a mediocre job at getting people involved and spreading awareness. This is partly why I started this channel... To breakdown some of EU's complexities so people understand what the EU is all about. 4. QMV is a good concept. But if I am not mistaken it is only used in the Council of the European Union. In the parliament a simple majority is required (most of the time).
@@EUMadeSimple Hello, thanks for the reply. You gave me a lot to think about. 1. the spitzenkandidat concept is indeed a good concept that makes the parliament more involved in the functioning and selection of the EC. However I think there is also valid criticism in how it would lead to accelerated centralization & federalization detracting from the sovereignty of member states. This could risk a second Brexit situation. Having the parliament more involved in the EC selection process in a incremental fashion, would see the EU integrate similar to how the US federal government became increasingly involved/relevant relative to the constituent states. If there is to be any alteration via a treaty or convention. What I would suggest is: making the process of candidate proposal and selection more transparent. 2. Yes, my thoughts match yours. I think specific committees in the parliament such as data protection or monopoly regulation could receive unique competences in initiating legislation. 3. I greatly applaud your efforts and commend this channel for the mission of clarifying the EU. It is valuable for all stakeholders, which is a worthwhile endeavor. 4. Indeed the QMV system is used in the council. What I'm suggesting that 1/3 of MEP's are elected via a EU-wide constituency of proportional representation, rather than national. This would strengthen continental parties such as Volt, relative to national parties. Which results in a more direct democracy with parties that represents EU ideas, rather than national parties modified for a EU system. One criticism I see regarding this is that politics becomes less local, and therefore could become like US with 2 parties for 300M+ people. However I think this will likely not occur if this is balance through having only 1/3 of MEPs elected like this, and voters represented proportionally not FPTP which maintains incentives for multiparty (Duverger's law). I hope this reply will correspondingly give you a lot to think about. -Spread Good Vibes
Hey Vibes, Really good points... I would love to hear your feedback on the following: 1. I understand your point around sovereignty and it is a valid counter-argument. However, I feel that part of the reason people feel the EU is undemocratic is because they simply dont't understand how Von der Leyen (or any other EC President) came into power. At the moment the process is not transparent. If we had a working Spitzenkandidat process the people would potentially know who could become the EC president when they cast their vote. It is also easier to explain and is more transparent. Yes, sovereignty is a bit lower on the national side as the European Council loses a bit of power... But is this a worthy trade-off? 2. We agree :) 3. Thanks :) 4. I find this idea fascinating. How would you see this working though? For example, VOLT has Pan-European ideas but they still very much operate as a national party in each country (I think that is also how they are registered). For these 1/3 seats, would you have the usual suspect parties from the EP campaign throughout Europe? Like you said, the EP are national parties grouped together. Would love to hear a bit more around this.
@@EUMadeSimple Hello, 1. I think regarding transparency we agree, that information regarding candidate selection should be more available to the public. The Spitzenkandidat proccess would result in a status quo where the default individual is through recommendation from the EP plurality party. If the public is more conscious of this, then there is indeed a strong argument for turning this from convention into treaty. I think this is appropriate for the responsibilities of initiating/amending/approving legislation. However what we are discussing is the appointment of the chief executive and representative of the EU internally & externally. The appointment for the post of these responsibilities should be less politicized/controversial and exert the ideals of unity, therefore an indirect process is appropriate. Where it is complex is that, this one post has BOTH the responsibility of initiating legislation and operating as chief executive. Personally I think we can consider the creation of new post (Chancellor/Chairman) that could adopt the responsibility of initiating legislation. This post would be independently appointed and primarily selected by EP & approved by council. 4. I think that the adoption of the system of 1/3 MEPs selected through a single constituency proportional representation would change political discussion from a national one in each state to one where the entire European electorate is important. Therefore the discussion will move from a nation based one, where local parties are prevalent to one where all Europeans are potential voters and thus policy proposal that benefit the entire EU electorate will be incentivized. Which parties are voted in for these seats may start of as the current national parties. But has the potential to evolve into more continent-wide parties (both federalist & confederalist). This would therefore remove 1 layer of 'abstraction' (nation-states) from the voters and their elected representatives. Overall I think that the EU is in a unique position as an emerging superstate to develop modern institutions of democratic legislation. The wealthiest trading bloc has major implications on global trends. So showing the ability to reform into a more perfect union is a fantastic European project that exerts soft power on those around us. -Spread Good Vibes
I am really starting to like the idea of 1/3 MEPs voted in by proportional representation throughout the EU. Like you said, it could potentially push the discussion away from nation self interest to more EU wide interest, which I think is lacking at the moment. There are many questions though... 1) Would Europeans get 2 EU votes then? 1 for the National party in the EP and the other for a pan-european party in the EP? 2) Is there any specific reason why you think 1/3 is appropriate? 3) How would this work with the election of the EC President? It is possible that 1 party would dominate (e.g. VOLT) resulting in a EP majority. However, it is unlikely that any heads of state would promote a VOLT EC president. Need to give it some research. But it may be really interesting to include in a future video. I may reach out to you again in the future in case you are interested in contributing some of your ideas :)
The mistake is to say that councils are democratic. They are voted in for sure, but they are voted mainly for internal issues because they are much more important than EU politics. You can get voted in without even mentioning EU. Even selection for the head of the member state is often indirect. Secondly, the voters generally have no idea how EU works and that is not because they are stupid, but because EU is a complicated bureacratic monster that is difficult to understand. If you asked 10 citizens to explain the basics, I think you might get one who knows this stuff if you are lucky. This shows in the lack of interest in EU politics in internal elections and the low voter turnout in the EU elections.
Agree with a lot of what you say. The EU needs to reform. The difficulty is getting all 27 members to agree on reform. Will be a very difficult process with lots of opt outs
Olaf Scholz is not the German head of state, the President of Germany is. I think what you mean is the European Council consists of heads of state & government. Otherwise the monarchs within the EU would play a far more active role.
Yes it will be difficult to implement.. how would you split the Union? 7 regions with heads of state that work together? I am looking into it for a future video :)
@@EUMadeSimple really looking forward to watching that! The idea of our 7 heads of state is that they lead a department (energy, infrastructure, military, etc.) so it would be best if every member contributes people to represent them in those departments. I don't think it would be all that difficult to implement. Switzerland has a huge culturally, ethnic, religious, linguistic (4 main languages next to our dialect, 3 of which represent a big part of Europe being French, German and Italian) and geographic variety which makes it ideal as a model for other European countries. At least, I don't see a reason it should not be implemented on a country level. Power is much more distributed and a single voter has more impact than most voters in other countries.
Britain is very culturally different from mainland Europe. Having foreigners decide our laws and freedoms is hardly in the interests of a island national. Britain has always had an individualist outlook,the loner amongst friends.The eu reminds more of the roman empire with ultimate power very much centralised.
"... hardly the interest of an island national" ? Malta, Cyprus and Ireland seem to have no difficulty in that. Could it just be something uniquely british ?
@@colinsmith1288 excuses for not living up to one's commitments. Cherrypicking, cherrypicking. We're used to it. Luckily we don't have to put up with your nonsense anylonger. Bye bye.
@@hansnijsen9012 l wish your country well. I only have issue with Germany and France. Both countries l cannot stand.. The rest of Europe l am okay with. But it does feel good to have our island back. In particular l love the Greeks,the polish and the Portuguese and Cypriots,great people.
@@colinsmith1288 Your island has always been yours. Your country always was independant. You just never knew. You will learn that later. Because you britts are totaly ignorant of what the EU is and how it works. Your country failed to take up it's role and influence in the organisation. And you've send pupits instead of politicians to represent you. But that isn't anybody's fault over here is it ? And frankly I find your hatred against the french or the germans laughable.
You should compare the EU to France & I believe it would make it easier to understand for more people. For example, the European Council & French President nominate a candidate for the Commission President & Prime Minister, then the European & French Parliament confirm whether the candidate can command a majority of support. The EU is basically semi presidential.
That EU is not democratic should be known for everyine, but people keep shuttting their eyes and ear for any critisism on this matter. For example people point at the "right to veto" any decision in the EU. But does this right to veto actually work? Not really, as any country that veto will be seriously bullied by the established powers of EU. For example Poland doe snot want to take many immigrants, as they do not want their country to be ruined like Italy, France and UK. So the EU want to slap on a fine of 22.000 Euro for every immigrant Poland refuse to take!!! Insane. Another example, today, 4th October EU have decided to slap a 36% penalty duty on every car that is imported from China, this is on top of the 10% which was already there. One should think that a veto from one of the members could stop this? But no, for countries to stop this actually 15 countries with at least 65% of the population in the EU is needed to stop it, hardly democratic... That the customs duty for cars from China is probaby very much needed is another matter, as democracy should decide regardless.
Looks like you make a mistake most people do : representative democracy is NOT democracy. Representatives may be elected democratively but to be a real democracy, you need to be able to dismiss them whenever you consider they don't represent you anymore.
Sorry but your definition of democracy is far from what democracy means. We should take each country as one person in parliament because now if we take the number of people living in a country and then give more votes to those then as is now country with less people in it doesn't have anything to say and that will be the end of eu. Why stay if Germany and France are the one's that say what should happen? And they have now showed in crisis times they are hopeless and only focused on their luxury of live.
We don't need any kind of empire at all. The eastern member states suffered for 40 years in the Soviet empire, we do not want to be part of another empire. Western Europe does not understand the eastern member states, which had to fight hard for their freedom. We don't want to start all over again, to go along colonial lines again. An empire is an empire, it doesn't matter who leads it. The goal of empires was always to colonize weaker member states. This can be the only goal of the EU too. Yes, the goal is that the eastern member states are forced to follow western, especially German, goals. The union is already very similar to the autocratic, oppressive, blackmailing nature of the Soviet empire. We do not believe that the Western European empire will be any better. Europe can only be made great again by an alliance of strong, sovereign nation-states, and not by one half of Europe colonizing the other half of Europe.
Is that what you learned from the Ukraine war and being sidelined since WW2? The EU is the only chance that these proud old and most importantly small. Every country so far that hasn't been a part of one of the major players has been attacked and been interfered with by either China, India, Russia or the US. The only reason why you don't see this is because the EU is very benevolent. It hasn't done any of this. No one has forced anyone to join the EU. Your empire argument completely false flat when talking about the EU. It may want to become bigger but as long as it isn't being hostile towards others in that pursuit, then it's completely fine. Also, all the eastern members willingly joined. I can tell this much as well. Their votes matter as much as the votes from either Germany and France which you are so scared of. It's also not more oppressive than what your own country is. You would be surprised with just how much autonomy you guys have. On the point of blackmailing. Please provide any evidence of this, at all. On you last point of the EU needing to be an alliance of strong nation-states. Did you see how incompetent we were when handling an external threat because we are that divided now? We will never be strong or have any real capability with what you want. We need to pool our resources. It will help every member and make sure that no one is slacking. I've seen everything you have said so many times before and it's all from nationalists who has been lied to by someone. The EU doesn't care about your national dish or national holidays. As long as you behave decently then it won't do anything. At worst it might push into place some stronger rights for workers. When you actually look at the laws that the EU has passed. You will be shocked how decent the vast majority are. There is no place for small countries anymore. You will always be a pawn to one of the big players. You can live a fantastic life, but all of a sudden one of the big guys want something from you and then it's over. You will be left with nothing instead a very decent chunk of what you had before. Here is some examples. The middle-east has been torn apart by the US, leaving several countries almost completely destroyed.. Bhutan is being encroached on by China. Hongkong has been taken over by China. Georgia lost a part of it to Russia. Ukraine lost Crimea to Russia. Guyana is in the process of losing territory to Venezuela. These are all some of the recent ones and they have all happened within the last 20 years. The small guys will always be bullied by the big guys. And here you are, complaining about the EU that does non of this. The only expansion it ever did was when a smaller country wanted to join the Union. You would rather lose everything to one of the bad ones than join with the one that is by far the most benevolent.
@@grimreaper8220 So much so that Farage actually got elected into the parliament, the irony in someone screaming unelected, not democracies only for him to get elected to the European Parliament. At the end of the day, repeat a lie enough time and enough people will buy into it, especially the ignorant ones which there are a lot of them, which is why when someone smart argues a case against an Eurosceptic, the Eurosceptics argument falls flat on the ground that they start to look like a radical loon, we saw a lot of that in the UK on Brexit that reality had no impact on facts lol.
@@grimreaper8220 well he was elected, how do you think he got there? Plus commission is not elected, but neither are ministers let’s say ir heads of governments, yet no one complains about that. And it would be kinda stupid to vote directly for the minister for education lets say
Why von der Leyen works for Anglosphere, not Europeans for whom she is responsible? It is her personal benefit, which goes against the benefit of European people. This is "Democracy" that she is pushing for, and can be called corruption in democratic nations. Be reminded emotion beats logical thinking.
The problem is that the EU wants to be a federal state but hasn't asked if people want it to be, if they want further enlargement or integration. I would rather a trade bloc with no European Parliament, no Schengen, no single currency, no President or Commission.
yea, we definitely feel unheard, even as germans. I remember having a discussion about the fairness of the representation, and i remember that no one cared because we all disliked the EU institutions
Hey Kelvin, thanks for the comment. I am intrigued by what you said as I would like to understand why people don't feel heard. And why there is a dislike for the EU institutions. Would you like to elaborate? Its potentially good feedback for future videos :)
@@EUMadeSimple I believe reason we all felt unheard can be boiled down to the process in which ideas and initiatives brought forth by the public get reviewed or passed into law. The amount of Time and number of reviews these proposals undergo and get prevented by the smallest bureaucratic bit Made it feel as if the idea was to make it impossible for public ideas to get implemented or even discussed on a higher level. That way our trust in the institutions of the EU just dwindled. I mean the german government is the Same and we also Made fun of that all the time. For example, our security Service has to notify you per Letter before being allowed to collect your data or Listen to your phonecalls. Please keep in mind that 1. This discussion has taken place a few months back and i dont remember any details and 2. The class was only extra credit so no one really remembered any names or took time to truly understand them further than the oversimplified explanations that were given to us. I don't know the term for whatever initiative (or proposed ideas or what they are called )given to whatever parliament, especially Not in english. I just come from a 5 hour Revision Session so i hope my sentences Made any sense and i got my point across Edit: i think another Problem was the way laws are implemented throughout the EU. Because they have to still respect the law of every Single country, and sometimes they are only guidelines to just ignore or arent enforced properly. I remember this being Part of one discussion. We were all quite critical of everything anyway
I agree that things take way too long XD. Part of the problem I feel is that each nation state has different interests and block ideas that don't suit them. Especially, when it comes to Foreign Policy and taxation as you need unanimous agreement accorss all member states :) Ich wohne auch in Deutschland also kann ich verstehen wie du dich fühlst. Es ist alles sehr bürokratisch
As a persom who lives in the EU I think it should die, and for all Dutch Europhile polticians who forced us into this corporate fascist uinion; to be prosecuted for high treason and crimes against humanity commited against the Dutch people.
Ultimately, the question of what degree of democratic practice can we assign to the EU, doesn't have much to do with how the EU conducts itself toward member nations -- and there's the rub! The EU is becoming more authoritarian & dictatorial over time. The EU parliament being elected or not is basically irrelevant to how it treats member nations.
@@EUMadeSimple Hi, I've only just noticed your reply and question as to how the EU conducts itself towards member nations. My apologies, but you have caught me on the hop with your query. I was not really expecting a reply to my post. I would need to check my sources to give you good specific accurate examples but I need a little time. I will do so and post it in a future current video you do, under my heading - HOW EU TREATS MEMBER NATIONS. With any luck, you might spot it. I would have thought it was common knowledge and you would have more info than me re this. Poland, Hungary, Greece, Cypress? come immediately to mind. The EU is an economic bully. In general, I'll just say, for now, the EU passes laws and wants to override sovereign nation's laws and demands compliance, in areas that make no sense if the EU is just a benign common trading block. But do make sense if you are trying to impose central federal government control over member states. It was known when the Euro was introduced that it would cause significant economic difficulties. The Euro was not just purely economic but seen as a way to promote federation. A federation of states needs a common currency. Notice England kept right out of it. I'll finish with this observation from Otto Von Hapsburg, from the old ruling family of the Holy Roman Empire; "The citizens of the EU live by the tradition of the Holy Roman Empire but they know not by what tradition they live" He knew what the EU really is, but do we? It's no accident that one of Europe's highest honours is the Charlemagne Prize.
@@glenwillson5073 No country was forced to enter the EU or adopt the euro, they chose it themselves and acepted certain conditions, for good and for bad. And it's quite apparent that the good outweighs the bad, just look at how much poorer countries have evolved since entering the EU and look at all the countries queing up for membership. When the last crisis hit and countries like Greece and Portugal were deep in shit, whose fault was that? The EU? Or those countries' governments who just spent money recklessly? Poland and Hungary are creating laws in their countries that go against European values of democracy and equality. By enterering the EU, they formaly agreed to uphold those values, so, the EU has full rights to intervene. And if I was a citizen of one of those countries, I'd be very thankful to the EU for trying to protect my rights, when my own government is trying to take them away.
@@thodan467 Yes, exactly, the EU is not only a trading block. That's my major point, it's not only a trading block, it's something else. I'm glad you understand that critical point. That's the number one reason for Brexit - It's not only a trading block!
We had kind of the same structure of parliament in Lower Canada (Quebec) in the 1800s and before so what you’re saying is bs because my people rebelled for that reason 🤣 kind of structure that keep elected people to propose laws and legislate. We did a rebellion for that kind of shit
I'm not keen to see a fully federated, fully nuclear armed EU, but I regard this pro-EU Channel as well worth watching, lots of info well presented - long may it continue. But if this channel thinks it can present the EU in a sufficiently positive light to tempt England back, in that regard it is doomed to failure. England will never rejoin the EU, because at its very heart, England is not out ultimately only because of concerns over democracy or trade or economics or immigration etc. etc. England is out for the age old reason -- England, never has and never will, allow itself to be dominated and controlled either economically, politically or religiously by a Continental based political or religious entity of any kind. To not understand this fundamental factor, is to not understand the history of England & Europe since the time of Rome. And it is to not really understand Brexit at its most fundamental level.
Hi Glen, I appreciate your feedback and really like having multiple perspectives on this channel. So thanks fot your input. My aim is not to reverse Brexit... My aim is to try and explain how the EU works :). And also to give people my take on current issues and EU actions. When there is an opinion piece I will be sure to mention it in my videos :)
@@EUMadeSimple Yes, I didn't really think the purpose of your channel was to help reverse Brexit. I was being a bit retororical, more a reference to various posts and comments re the whole issue in general. I do believe there are "interesting times" ahead in the EU though.
@@thodan467 I'm not quite sure what you mean "dislike like the other options more", what other options are currently on the table? The Norman's are an interesting one. They were French speaking but not actually French for the most part. But the important aspect is, they were absorbed. England remained largely independent from any sort of Continental Empire. The Norman's don't affect my point that England will never be a part of any Continental European organisation -- that's why they already be a-gone & ain't ever be a-coming back.
@@glenwillson5073 Look at Russia Analyse the Situation in Africa Look at China You may find that a well functioning, powerful EU is your best hope England was part of the normannic - angevin empire at this time
Ah yes. EU propaganda YT. The EU literally isn't a democracy, but an aristocracy. All power resides within seats that are appointed by the ruling class. That's the literal definition of an aristocracy
The problem is, do we actually want a more democratic eu? Because there is something that happens when democracy comes in: incompetence and electoralism. There is a reason why I trust the EU but not my government. And thats because the tecnocrátic part of the European institutions is what prevents it from becoming populist/electoralist
I suspect the Eurosceptics don't want a more democratic EU because it will make it a lot harder for them to argue their case against the project, which is basically, many of them don't want the EU project full stop. The way the EU is now, makes it a lot easier for Eurosceptics to make their case and point out the flaws, a more democratic one would actually be worse for them because it would weaken the hardcore Eurosceptics whiles pulling a lot of the moderate ones away from them. Personally, I do think the EU needs to connect more with the people and I do think there needs to be more involvement from the EU and the people as the EU feels very distant for many Europeans and it's that what is fuelling the Eurosceptic movements. Reforms to the EU are needed but we don't want to copy another system that is already there like the US or UK because both look like a poor democratic system that rarely seems to listen to the people. Europeans in the EU have a golden chance to create a new much better democratic system if they fight for it.
yes (de)(moto) cr attic the house you mean my house im suffered of and dont live in or with bet yet still am subjugated to slavery and impoverishment by not being paid myself and paying others sum how through their self being proprietors of me with out payment and not of i that i know of or can do anything about as their is what looks like ann electric wall seperating 1 half of me the left tower from the right side of me that your are now re en towering i should be on the front page of the news world wide by now for the amount of press on me !!!!
The EU-Parlament is organised by big EU-parties that receive direct financial not just from the parliament budget but also from political foundations from certain rich eu member states but also from private, cooporative and non-eu political institutions. This financial and lobbyist activity questionates the independence of the EU parliament members, also many times some deputies eve vote against the interests of their own country. The leadership choice for EU Parliament topic commissions is also very questionable. There is a strong sentiment that the EU parliament is disconnected from the reality living in an virtual EU Fantasy world. Also the EU Parliament finances propaganda for a federalist forces without no mandate for such, which is obvious anti democratic to try to silence divergent voices. The choice of the commissaries, ministers-like of the EU commission is very uneven and is done not by any democratic accountability but the by the negotiating strength of certain countries. The EU is based on an ideal of check and balances, which would be good, if the weakest parts would have a veto vote, in theory yes, but is has been abused not to recognise that power. Some states and its legitim elected governments have been questioned if not even discredited by the EU commission or even by EU institutions. The abuse of power is becoming more and more latent with the years. I would remind that the origin of power is and will stay within the national states. The sovereignty borrowed by the EU belongs in base to the people, it is incorporated by the different national institutions and their constitutions and democratic systems. The EU in trying to hide it or to presents it self as supra-national, above national law is mining democracy on its base, discredits itself. Resistence has been growing in many countries. Addressing the errors of configuration of the EU as a all or clarifying the borders of power of each institution would me reforming the treaties which is very dangerous and almost impossible to preview full support of all member states. It is clear that some states have much more power within the EU institutions than other. The abuse of power for some institutions is supported exactly by these states while others perceive a real treat to their national institutions. The indirect election of the EU commission by democratic bodies does not make it at all democratic at all, specially when the electing body has almost no power compared by the elected body. My personal opinion is that a certain political family of thought has taken over the EU institutions and has been expanding like an Octopus, a mafia using the EU political parties, perverting the initial spirit of all founding treaties that lead to the EU. This will have to be addressed.
Actually WTO imposes a lot of (trade)rules, though for sure not exactly laws that impact most people. Then again how many EU laws can you name that impacted you or anyone you know negatively?
@@MDP1702 WTO in affect sets out how countries deal with each other, not what they deal with each other. For example, the Most Favoured Nation rules say you can't give preferential treatment to one nation and not another, unless a trade agreement is signed. I.E. You can do whatever you like, just sign a deal. No country's obliged to impose tariffs, or laws restricting the rights of their citizens, and no country is asked to pay a _tithe._ Trump even proposed the Fair & Reciprocal Trade Act that would pretty much have bypassed WTO rules, without even notifying their withdrawal. As for EU laws that impact me, the 15% common external tariff is one, it affects me every time I buy over priced junk from the EU instead of the better quality, more competitive foreign produce, because protectionist trade practises price the better stuff out of the market. Or what about the Digital Services Act, yet another censorship bill designed to further pressure big tech to be more trigger happy when it comes to stifling speech? It doesn't matter if I can name the law, or name the exact passage, or quote the very line that I have an issue with, the fact is, the EU keeps coming up with new BS laws, designed to force companies to spend prohibitive amounts of money on overpriced lawyers, just to know whether or not the wick of the £2 candles they sell are too long/short to be legal. And if you think that's me exaggerating, you really need to have a closer look at the EU before you defend it.
Most laws will always effect some people positively and other people somewhat negatively. This is the case in every country. But there are plenty of laws that the EU has created that I think have done a lot of good: Free Roaming is the most obvious. But then there is also the Consumer Rights Directive and the Flights Compensation (one that I personally love). Not to mention the Citizens Right Directive. This is just to name a few as the list goes on. And lets also not forget, a point I also tried to make in the video. Every citizen in the EU gets to vote. A vote that counts. These laws are not made without getting through the parliament and Council, where countries are represented. So, in the case of the "£2 candles they sell are too long/short to be legal" was probably something that most memberstates (potentially including yours) agree upon. I am not sure ofc as I didnt look it up :) But that is how the system works.
@@Pax.Britannica *WTO in affect sets out how countries deal with each other, not what they deal with each other.* How does this contradict with what I said? *the 15% common external tariff is one, it affects me every time I buy over priced junk from the EU instead of the better quality, more competitive foreign produce, because protectionist trade practises price the better stuff out of the market.* Considering it is 15%, the 'junk' from the EU (which is usually of higher quality) can't be that much more expensive, else you'd just take the 15% extra cost. So what for example did this impact, which specific items did this negatively impact? Also every country has such tarrifs set up unless there is a trade deal with another nation. If they don't set such tarrifs, it is only going to be to the detriment of that nation long term. *Or what about the Digital Services Act, yet another censorship bill designed to further pressure big tech to be more trigger happy when it comes to stifling speech?* How did it truly impact you? You do realise that the UK is out-regulating the EU when it comes to online services? Or more than likely you just don't hear or notice that because everything happens in the background, not impacting you, just what happens with these new EU laws. *the EU keeps coming up with new BS laws* So does the UK government, shouldn't you worry about that? Maybe split of your region from the UK? If you think the UK isn't regulating a lot, think again. Boris himself once used to complain about an 'EU-rule', for it to turn out be a UK rule.
@@MDP1702 It contradicts what you said because countries can do whatever they like, they only abide by the rules to make it easier for other countries and their own people to understand what they're doing. And it's not imposed on anyone. *which specific items did this negatively impact?* See, there you are asking for specifics. I don't need to give specifics when it applies to every single damn item I buy from outside the EU. *every country has such tarrifs set up unless* Not Singapore. And so what? They are still laws applied by the EU, and as a result of leaving, those tariffs have been lowered under the UKGT. *If they don't set such tarrifs, it is only going to be to the detriment of that nation long term.* Tariffs are self harm, imposed only to protect a politicians voter base. From Adam smith, Milton Friedman to Thomas Sowell, even Karl Marx, economists understand this. With countries as small as Singapore to countries as large as the British Empire (who pioneered Unilateral free-trade) both benefitted tremendously from it. The only exception to Free-trade, as conceded by all the aforementioned economists, are matters of national security. The EU buying all their oil from Russia for instance. But still, we can rely on allies, the US, Australia and as much as I dislike saying this, the EU (for now 🥴) we do not need to impose tariffs on them. *How did it truly impact you?* By increasing the risk of me being censored. A more censorious world is a more dangerous one. *UK is out-regulating the EU* Given that you think it's OK to ask for specifics, I'm going to ask that you give me the exact regulations that the UK has "out-regulating the EU" with. *shouldn't you worry about that?* Yes I should. And I do. I just don't want to also worry about what BS laws the EU insists on enforcing. *Boris himself once used to...* Specifics please.
Look up the round table of european industrialists. They're a very important lobbying institution that's part of the official EU institutions, and they have a big hand in the process of passing laws, since they often propose drafts to the commission.
There's the same thing with banks and the ECB as well. It's no wonder that people say the EU is undemocratic when a person like Draghi can go from Goldman Sachs to ECB president to Italian President all organized through backdoor deals...
I felt this. The video seems to argue that the 'idea' of the EU is not undemocratic - fair.
The question is how that idea is put into practice and the execution. The example you give is an excellent crystallization of the technocratic nature of the EU.
One doesn't even need to go far to hear relevant EU criticism - termed "EU bashing" in the video. Yanis Varoufakis can give his two cents on how the ECB and finance hold more sway over decision making in practice than the rosy idea leads on to. I guess that's what's termed as a "democratic deficiency" instead of what it is; plutocracy.
I would like to inform you that your comment has not gathered a like from the European Union channel and did not warrant a response. They don't want to hear dissenting views here. Not as if they gave you the option to vote whether or not you wanted to be in the EU in the first place.
@@michelangelobuonarroti4958 yeah this is what 🤙 called Organized Crime " 👋 by upper Class- Criminal Elites So mafia looks" 🎨 Pale in color!,,
@@Jose-sy1je yeah 🤘 sign up for Fachism! ALSO enjoy it while it lasts!!! Good luck 🤞 with it??
@@forgogeorge9806 Fascism? That's the exact opposite for fascism. You have a state deciding over you and don't have democracy.
Let's look at a glaring example, the EU-Hungarian debate. Did the union take out a loan to cover the post-Covid economic downturn? YES. Did the member states, including Hungary, participate in this as debtors? YES. Was the distribution of the loan subject to conditions in the case of other countries? NO. Poland was also blackmailed by the union because there was also a patriotic government. Now that there was a change of government there, everything is forgiven for the Poles.
The other countries also received the money. In the case of Hungary, the loan taken by the country was tied to false and extortionate conditions. Despite this, the Hungarians tried to fulfill all conditions. This was also accepted by the leadership of the union, which is why the committee authorized the payment of 10 billion with great difficulty but still, because there was nothing else they could do. On this the EU-Parlament contested this and yesterday sued the Commission for how they dared to give money to Hungary.
But that's not enough. This week it was announced that Hungary will not receive the remaining 20 billion at all, because the Hungarian laws do not allow minors (school children and kindergarteners in preschool age) to be educated in an LGBTQ-spirit. The Hungarians said that they are in no way willing to change their position on this issue, even if they even if they don't get their due money.
Ruling with blackmail and propaganda.
Hungary should have never bin part of the EU its way to corrupt, they should have stayed with their friends white-russia and Putin's Russia. It has very little to do with LGBTQ+ spirit and way more to do about the corruption like the political influence on its judicial system.
In my opinion one of the most problematic things within the EU is the need to get unanimously decisions by all countries. I understand the idea (which isn't a bad one by itself), but it basically boils down to important decisions being blocked by the vetos of one or more countries (it's the same with the UN security council). If we find a way to improve this decision making process, the EU might be able to turn around the situation and become more prosperous again. If not I fear either a dragging degeneration into nothingness or a sudden implosion...
Isn't the current system "Instead of the majority deciding what will happen it's the minority vetoing and deciding what will not happen"?
It made sense at the time it was implemented, as states may have been shy or too concerned that their decisions could be overrun, virtually affecting their sovereignty. But now that EU, for the large part has demonstrated it's a willingness to cooperate, such as through the Euro crisis, I think it's high time to do away with the system as well. It can still be a majority (maybe 80% approval) but having Hungary block the rest of the EU on something because he jerry-mandered the election results and can now unanimously make decisions is pretty absurd.
Uhuh, yes......"we"......."we,the people"
But unlike the UN, the EU only allows entry to countries which align with values and are open/free/democratic. Also through article 7 there is the option to revoke voting rights to countries which regress (please, correct me if I'm wrong on this, I don't know this clause well)
The requirement of unanimous decisions means any laws which are passed have full support and commitment of the entire bloc. A qualified majority system would risk dragging members into policies they don't like without even listening to or attempting to fix their objections. This risks sowing resentment and creating fractures in the system (think of how states in the US squabble over anything and everything passed by the federal government)
I understand the issue of Hungary is hot on everyone's minds, but in my opinion the longevity of the bloc is more important than some laws being blocked in the short term. I don't think the EU needs to be, or should be for that matter, as nimble a body as a national government.
They just got rid of borders and threw countries into one big union without letting them even vote on it. Then they ask if what they constructed is democratic? A pathetic question. Further, try becoming president of the EU or holding any high office without being fully behind the "European cause".
The difference with other institutions is that the national leaders we send there represent our voice and almost nothing is legally binding if we do not agree.
In EU it is mostly large countries like Germany that decide regardless of what our local politicians say since they have so many votes.
You seem to have forgotten to add that the unelected European Commission can veto any law they don’t like.
You seem to have forgotten that the people who do elect the European Commission are the leaders from all member states. Making it very democratic. The majority also want to remove the veto power because of the issues it brings.
@@uqs57bjuYeah... so democratic. Will the people ever vote for someone like Juncker who was constantly drunk? Or the corrupted Ursula?
And the ECJ bans its judges from writing dissents.
@@uqs57bju And the fact that the EC is elected by the leaders from all member states makes it very democratic how? Don't forget the fact that those same leaders forced the EU and euro on to us with false promises and without any vote or binding referendum.
@@maboelnreads yes 💯🔥 exactly unelected 💶 European commission can veto any law they don't like " suit 😔 their vision to keep them employed 😕 ?? This vision is not 🚫 my interest ?? So we can veto it 😉 !!
The biggest problem for democratic legitimacy is the Council of the European Union. Why, you wonder? It's actually quite straight forward and simple: The Council is comprised of EU heads of state, which have an executive role on the national level. However, on the EU level - i.e. in the Council - they are hold legislative power, which which means they can _pass_ laws. A function, that should only be reserved for parliaments.
So you end up with the strange situation, that when a law is rather unpopular with national parliaments, they can bring the European Commission (which was appointed by the very same heads of state) to introduce a law on which they themselves then vote on. The only safety here is the EU parliament, which luckily got more and more power over the years. But it still is democratically problematic when the same people wield executive and legislative power at the same time albeit on two different levels.
Anyways, rant end. //
Same can be said of every MP in the UK where a MP has executive role in his/her constituency and legislative powers in the HoC.
you are confused as the council of europe is composed of the ministers while the european council is made up of heads of state
wrong. council of the european union is comprised of MINISTERS, the european council is made of the heads of state. the european council has NO LEGISLATIVE POWER!!
Democracy in Belgium: over 40% of the population voted for a far right winged and a center right winged party, so a center-right government yet we got a center-left coalition of 7 parties with the least votes and a prime minister from one of those parties.
The chosen product wasn't available. That has also happened to me before. They will provide you with a replacement in that case.
It's created ondememocratic! Nederland out!
the EU is not anti democratic offcourse, neither is the comission allpowerfull but there are still very serious issues
the use of an informal French education system as a basis for employment in the EU is an issue, you can easily check the site of the Europacollege to find out that it is far from ideologically diverse, personal accounts from students even stating that they are to either accept a specific ideological view or get out. (which is ofcourse also the main complaint towards the neoliberal advocates regarding international relations in general)
the issue of the constitution, in essence the EU cheated in a defacto constitution due to the failure to get all members on board with a formal one, I am sure it is clear how this could be a problem given that most people are not even aware of this or in fact that whilst 85% of the national legislation is EU legislation most people have no idea at all. These are in fact twin issues.
When it comes to democracy itsself I would say that it is BARELY democratic, representative democracy is supposed to be us electing the people that represent us
not us representing the people who select the people who select the people that wil represent us. It is perfectly reasonable to expect the commission members (who defacto do constitute one per member state) to be elected trough national elections in every member state,
instead they are chosen by the counsil, proposed (as an undivisible package) to parliament who can only decide yay or nay and if nay they simply restructure it, negotiate on the side a bit and it comes for parliament again and again,
relatively speaking I would NOT call that democracy.
in fact the US at least hold semi formal referenda on certain key issues on the ballot, (they should essentially be binding but corruption and "interpretation" can and often do mess with that)
I am pro EU as an idea, but not this weird state in which it exists, Make it a proper confederacy, reduce it's authorities on the national scale of countries, similarly to how the US operates regarding states and federal government but give it quasi all and exclusive authority over external matters, (also includes matters between member states ofcourse, (foodsafety for instance))
I don't mind formally becoming a state, but it has to include proper democracy, we can base ourselves in large part on our American allies but in line with Riccardo's law we can actually escape some of the major issues with the US.
Heard about Volt?
So the people that are responsible for enforcing and drafting the EU laws can't be voted out of office
Wonder why the EU electorate is not allowed to elect a ruling party or a president, perhaps they might put their tick in the wrong box.
Its a joke, more like a dictatorship.
But, Right wing politics is right about the people need in national sovereignity and freedom of choice. EU sucks in forcing europians to become one nation with one politics, one law, even one language. We do not need that, we do not want that. EU should be that it supose to be - the union of friendly free and sovereign states, with cooperation in economics and military defence, BUT not more. I am voting for no EU federation, no one law, no one politics, no directives from Brusel, no intervenience to national law and national goals.
Lol, our politicians say'd the same in 2001. The EU would only serve our defense and leave our sovereignty in tact. The benefits would outweigh the costs. I guess those outweighing benefits go to the politicians that get a job in Brussels.
Maybe they should do something about corruption... I mean lobbying
While there are appointed people in top posts and there are political groupings where politicians do not represent citizens of their countries , although the politicians were elected by the citizens of their country , there is and will never be democracy
Yeah l stopped ✋ ridiculous joke! Brussel should Never allowed the power or control they try to impose on Countries politically? Never, Never, Ever.
In 2001 our leaders promised that all though we be part of the EU we would keep our own sovereignty and decision making, we would never accept laws being pushed from an EU political government. We only joined and needed the EU to form 1 military power and thus create a superpower out of the EU. 23 years later we are all screwed by Brussels laws and still no step closer to unify all the different military powers in the EU.
Thank you for this incredibly well made content, if you keep it up like this, your channel will blow up definitely.
Awesome! I am really happy you like the content. Haha I hope so too :) It has already gotten bigger a lot quicker than I thought.
THE UK HAD BEEN IN THE EU DECADES I CAN ONLY REMEMBER VOTING ON THE EU ONCE WAS TO GO IN AND THE OTHER TIME DECADES LATER TO COME OUT ,THANK GOD WE GOT OUT .
Yes it is true, the EU is not a democratic institution at all.The people should vote for its president directly.
People do not want that. That is why we are in this crazy way of doing things.
The fact most member states refused to ask theie citizens if you wanted to join, and the few who did ignored the outcome of the referendums till they got a positive result. The EU ignored 3 referendums that rejected the EU consitution and changed the legal definition from a "constitution" to an "treaty" so they coulg ignore the outcomes anf force it through as the Lisbon Treaty says enough. The EU is different theny other force from the past who tried to conquer Europe, the fact most of its founding fathers were hight ranked Nazi's & fascist also say enough. Not to mention that the parlement has no power, they dont have the "right of initiative (cant make their own proposals & agenda) and both the EU Commission and the European council can reject every voting outcome of the parlement till they are satisfied with the result. And the list goes on, but sadly there we have two generation of braindwashed people who werent their went everything went down.
One pretty important thing to remember on the topic of the european parliament is also that, while the parliament does not have the power to propose most laws, it does not only have the power to refuse the appointment of the commission, but also to VOTE THE COMISSION (or even single commissars) OUT OF OFFICE.
As such, the comission has little ability to NOT propose legislation the parliament wants proposed, at least if it wants to stay where it is.
True. Great comment and very relevant
The way you are putting it seems confusing, can someone explain to me what @broti means exactly?
@@superjmm12345 The Commission can propose Laws. Commissars and a President form the Commission.
The Parliament can remove the Commissars by voting. In thus if the Parliament wants a certain piece of Legislation very urgent, it can "threaten" the Commission with a Vote of no Confidence if this is refused.
The Parliament can not propose legislation, that is something only the Commission can do. In Theory if the Commission refuses to propose it the Parliament can not change it, but as explained has the Power to "threaten" the Commission.
@@HexAF8B9 Commissioners, not commissars
Most people don't even vote in the European elections bc they don't understand them. Voter turnout has been higher for national elections, but the EU will just dictate what they do then anyway.
I like that you always keep your videos short and crisp. Also really excited for the next one.
Glad you like them! :)
The next one is very difficult to keep short and crisp cause there are countless models.
@@EUMadeSimple I don't like them, it's pure propaganda.
I think you missed an important point: that public debate, a hallmark of democratic societes, is not carried EU-wide but only within nations. There are no newspapers or TV shows which are consumed across the EU, and people often have no idea how topics are being discussed even in their neighbor nations. This is astonoshing to me: Germany alone spends 8 billion Euro pa on public broadcasting, so it would be easy to have just one or two TV channels which broadcast news across the EU in different languages. Somehow they choose not to do that
it's funny hearing the UK talk about "democracy" as if they don't have an unelected head of state
Please tell: when has the queen ever imposed a law on the people?
She's a cultural figure head, not a politician. She can bask in her riches all she like, so long as she doesn't tread on me.
@@Pax.Britannica Yes but you still have a first past the post voting system, which is not very democratic in contrast to proportional representation.
@@mr.alarak2587 Yes, and the only people in the EU allowed to propose the creation or repealing of laws, are those no one has a vote for. That's a lot less democratic than a flawed voting system where everyone gets a vote.
@@Pax.Britannica If you don't live in Uxbridge or South Ruislip you haven't voted for Boris Johnson either.
Sure you could have voted conservative and the representatives voted for Boris Johnson ... and that is EXACTLY how it works in the EU.
@@buddy1155 My comments mentioned only the lack of political power the queen has, and the fact that the only people allowed to propose laws in the EU, are the unelected with loyalties to the EU above their nation.
I never mentioned the fact that the British or EU parliament's are representational democracies, nor have I criticised that.
But as far as your comment goes, your logic is flawed. Proposing a bill is in the power of any member of parliament, whether part of the ruling party or opposition. Thus, the voter always has the means of coercing his representative into proposing any bill the voter desires. And the representatives of all other voters can then vote on that bill.
Whereas the EU, has only one direction. And that's down stream. The inevitable destination those most likely to be offered a place in the council, who are most likely those who lost their election, are most likely to want to see the EU head. And that's the polar opposite of what the voters want. As they only need to get lucky once, and that's permanent, the voter needs to get lucky however many times to council decides to propose the same bill.
You know the amount of Belgian politicians that leave the national politics of Belgium to retire to the EU is a running joke. Guy Verhofstadt, Didier Reynders, Kris Peeters, Charles Michel etc are unable to get re-elected in their country of origin due to bad governance are PR fiasco’s.
Renew Europe, EPP, S&D and Greens are becoming much more autocratic.
Your video quality has definitely improved from more basic videos to more elaborate ones with well-developed answers, which I couldn't find on other channels(with channels focusing on the EU as few as they already are). Keep up the great work!
Thank you ! These definitely also take longer but are worth it :)
The arguments for Brexit were just designed to be parroted, not factual.
My personal preference would be a combination of the Swiss and the US model, where there would be a council of x amount of ministers that together head the executive like in Switzerland and a chairman of this Council that would act as a tie braker and as president for the EU like the president in the US. This way you get the spreading of power from the Swiss and the head of state that can be a person to point to for the population if something is good or bad, and gives the tie braker so that decisions can be made faster and more efficiently.
In practice, neither scenario gives regular people power or autonomy. What I've come to realize is that democracy is a state of mind, a feeling, nothing more. As far as a system, it's not really different when it comes to the most influential or important decisions.
Dude, EU is fracking wasp nest, ruled by unelected tirants! RoExit!
Power is a zero sum game. It either lies with each person or it doesn't.
If course it is not democratic. The European Commisdion proves that point
So: actually do actual politics to decide the grand landscapr and don't just debate the moralty of issues to decide which of the two parties is the worst option
The eu should evolve back into the trade union it was supposed to be.
I never asked be told what to do by an Italian and a Spaniard
You mean back to the Coal and Steel community?
If you repeat a lie for long enough, it won't become true.
But it will become part of the narrative and, therefor humanly true
Great video🙏
Glad you enjoyed
Eu is not Croatia where ein Kroatien ein volk ein party applies same party has been in power ever since country gained independence
could you please make a video about lisbon treaty? :)
people are really bad at voting for the eu parliament.
I think the EU could do a lot better at actually promoting direct democracy and civic polls. The eu is too messy
If we're going to have more direct democracy, a lot more of the public are going to have to be involved in what's going on in politics and being informed on what they are voting on.
A democracy is only as good as the people in it, in other words, the people actually turning up to vote and actually voting on facts, being informed about how things are and not how they want to see things.
A badly inform public can actually be worse for a democracy, just look at the UK and US over the last 5 years to see that.
The E.U doesn't like direct democracy.
@@skillbopster No one likes direct democracy. You don't either, you just don't know it yet. There is a reason why representative democracy is the most common form.
@@paul1979uk2000 how do you get informed about facts? I didn't vote because i could not find the facts about the EU political party's, except that they are mostly formed from locally failed politicians. And that they like all political party's lie and promise heaven for a vote. And all promises are forgotten after the election time.
The content on this channel is so good. There's nothing like this online. The closet thing is TLDR Europe but they are more news-focused and not EU mechanics-focused.
Production value just need to go up a bit with a bit better animation and visual effects, although these are a good start (such as the speech bubbles that pop up and what not with a bit of humor).
You need a bit of polishing with some skill, and then of course get Nord VPN to "sponsor" you so now you sound legit haha.
Europe should look at Switzerland. Not directly copying their system, but developing a bit in that direction.
Also it obviously needs to stay a fair bit more decentralized than the US. I don’t see a proper EU army or similar anytime soon. In many areas it’s efforts will stay coordinating.
Soo good content! Very well explained
Love these videos man
Keep it going
"Is the EU undemocratic?"
Yes. Yes it is.
The fact is that the law-making body of the EU - the commission - is not democratically elected. That's all you really need to know. The rest of it doesn't matter. The whole point of a democracy is legislation by popular sovereignty. The EU doesn't have that, ergo it isn't democratic.
The law making bodies are the parliament and the council… who passes law proposed by the commission
a good video, thanks
Glad you enjoyed it
The EU must be abolished
Good MEME for the Great Britain. Future of their Science and Education Sector are going into Gray Troubling Clouds. Less funds from the EU into their Projects, maybe less Cooperation with the EU. Tier models which could be found in here could be a choice.
The E U has never been Democratic.
Yeah the European Commission unelected bureaucrats
Ha ha! What a giant mess.
Its bad design that the EU election and the governmental elections are not aligned. This decreases the participation in the election, increases the cost of keeping the election, and sometimes makes weird artifacts, where the EU representatives of a country are working against the country's government. I would also argue that there needs to be a way to call back a representative, at the request of their country / party.
I greatly appreciate your organization of potential deficiencies while acknowledging that the EU is still quite democratic. This was quite coherent, and although I knew of these problems, having them outlined like this was valuable.
I just want to express my thoughts with these 4 problems you brought up.
1. Indirect Election of Commission.
Certainly not a direct electoral mechanism. Heads of state hold most power in process. But this is not necessarily bad. Since this post was created out of compromise, the current appointment is useful to represent the EU. And voters are represented proportionally in parliament instead of through 1 person. Which avoids the great spectacle that occurs in the US. However it might result in lower legitimacy and centralized authority in commission. I think this was intentional in creation of this post.
2. only commission can propose laws.
I think this was a compromise to conservatives in Lisbon treaty so that the EU is not continuously adopting new legislation. However it is clear that if there is a will for legislation at the council that it will be proposed but not similarly at the parliament. Therefore I think that the parliament should have some limited amount of legislative initiative.
3. Low turnout
This is indeed a serious problem to be addressed. As seen in the US a low voter turnout is an indicator of unhealthy democracy, or a voter's belief that their vote doesn't hold as much value as time the time investment to vote.
There are 2 general approaches to improve this. Either by increasing the competencies of the parliament. Or by increasing voter awareness (in EU unity and effect of voting).
4. Unequal Parliament Representation
This was adopted as a compromise to smaller states. I think it is also important to mention here that at the council a Qualified Majority Voting (QMV) system is often used, that requires 65% of pop & 55% of states to agree on adoption of a motion. This has a similar element of compromise between smaller and larger states.
I think that the QMV system is an improvement from the unanimity requirement that gave each state a veto power. Similarly I think that the parliament can be improved by having some MEPs elected through an EU wide election of universal suffrage with proportional representation, this would give every vote in EU equal power. Suppose that a third of MEPs are elected like this, then the representation would be somewhat rectified.
Overall I am curious as to how your commentary & analysis will proceed. I hope my thoughts may have helped spark new ideas.
Thanks for this very detailed comment. This is indeed great input for one of my next videos on how a future EU could look like.
Some initial thoughts to your points:
1. I am not necessarily in favour of a direct electoral mechanism either, especially because of the polarization it could cause within the union (e.g. US). However, the parliament could have a bigger role here. In 2019, the parliament shortlisted potential candidates for the EC presidency (Weber, Timmermans, Vestager). The European Council then politely ignored these candidates and chose a completely different candidate. Sure, the Parliament still has to vote and approve, but considering that the parliament is directly voted upon by the people, these shortlisted candidates (the spitzenkandidat concept) should be taken more seriously.
2. Agree. And this is also where it is heading towards. The parliament can already make legislation recommendations to the EC, but it just not legally binding to be iniated.
3. I honestly think that the EU does a mediocre job at getting people involved and spreading awareness. This is partly why I started this channel... To breakdown some of EU's complexities so people understand what the EU is all about.
4. QMV is a good concept. But if I am not mistaken it is only used in the Council of the European Union. In the parliament a simple majority is required (most of the time).
@@EUMadeSimple
Hello, thanks for the reply. You gave me a lot to think about.
1. the spitzenkandidat concept is indeed a good concept that makes the parliament more involved in the functioning and selection of the EC. However I think there is also valid criticism in how it would lead to accelerated centralization & federalization detracting from the sovereignty of member states. This could risk a second Brexit situation. Having the parliament more involved in the EC selection process in a incremental fashion, would see the EU integrate similar to how the US federal government became increasingly involved/relevant relative to the constituent states.
If there is to be any alteration via a treaty or convention. What I would suggest is: making the process of candidate proposal and selection more transparent.
2. Yes, my thoughts match yours. I think specific committees in the parliament such as data protection or monopoly regulation could receive unique competences in initiating legislation.
3. I greatly applaud your efforts and commend this channel for the mission of clarifying the EU. It is valuable for all stakeholders, which is a worthwhile endeavor.
4. Indeed the QMV system is used in the council.
What I'm suggesting that 1/3 of MEP's are elected via a EU-wide constituency of proportional representation, rather than national. This would strengthen continental parties such as Volt, relative to national parties. Which results in a more direct democracy with parties that represents EU ideas, rather than national parties modified for a EU system.
One criticism I see regarding this is that politics becomes less local, and therefore could become like US with 2 parties for 300M+ people. However I think this will likely not occur if this is balance through having only 1/3 of MEPs elected like this, and voters represented proportionally not FPTP which maintains incentives for multiparty (Duverger's law).
I hope this reply will correspondingly give you a lot to think about.
-Spread Good Vibes
Hey Vibes,
Really good points... I would love to hear your feedback on the following:
1. I understand your point around sovereignty and it is a valid counter-argument. However, I feel that part of the reason people feel the EU is undemocratic is because they simply dont't understand how Von der Leyen (or any other EC President) came into power. At the moment the process is not transparent. If we had a working Spitzenkandidat process the people would potentially know who could become the EC president when they cast their vote. It is also easier to explain and is more transparent. Yes, sovereignty is a bit lower on the national side as the European Council loses a bit of power... But is this a worthy trade-off?
2. We agree :)
3. Thanks :)
4. I find this idea fascinating. How would you see this working though? For example, VOLT has Pan-European ideas but they still very much operate as a national party in each country (I think that is also how they are registered). For these 1/3 seats, would you have the usual suspect parties from the EP campaign throughout Europe? Like you said, the EP are national parties grouped together. Would love to hear a bit more around this.
@@EUMadeSimple
Hello,
1. I think regarding transparency we agree, that information regarding candidate selection should be more available to the public.
The Spitzenkandidat proccess would result in a status quo where the default individual is through recommendation from the EP plurality party.
If the public is more conscious of this, then there is indeed a strong argument for turning this from convention into treaty.
I think this is appropriate for the responsibilities of initiating/amending/approving legislation.
However what we are discussing is the appointment of the chief executive and representative of the EU internally & externally. The appointment for the post of these responsibilities should be less politicized/controversial and exert the ideals of unity, therefore an indirect process is appropriate.
Where it is complex is that, this one post has BOTH the responsibility of initiating legislation and operating as chief executive.
Personally I think we can consider the creation of new post (Chancellor/Chairman) that could adopt the responsibility of initiating legislation. This post would be independently appointed and primarily selected by EP & approved by council.
4. I think that the adoption of the system of 1/3 MEPs selected through a single constituency proportional representation would change political discussion from a national one in each state to one where the entire European electorate is important. Therefore the discussion will move from a nation based one, where local parties are prevalent to one where all Europeans are potential voters and thus policy proposal that benefit the entire EU electorate will be incentivized.
Which parties are voted in for these seats may start of as the current national parties. But has the potential to evolve into more continent-wide parties (both federalist & confederalist). This would therefore remove 1 layer of 'abstraction' (nation-states) from the voters and their elected representatives.
Overall I think that the EU is in a unique position as an emerging superstate to develop modern institutions of democratic legislation. The wealthiest trading bloc has major implications on global trends. So showing the ability to reform into a more perfect union is a fantastic European project that exerts soft power on those around us.
-Spread Good Vibes
I am really starting to like the idea of 1/3 MEPs voted in by proportional representation throughout the EU. Like you said, it could potentially push the discussion away from nation self interest to more EU wide interest, which I think is lacking at the moment. There are many questions though...
1) Would Europeans get 2 EU votes then? 1 for the National party in the EP and the other for a pan-european party in the EP?
2) Is there any specific reason why you think 1/3 is appropriate?
3) How would this work with the election of the EC President? It is possible that 1 party would dominate (e.g. VOLT) resulting in a EP majority. However, it is unlikely that any heads of state would promote a VOLT EC president.
Need to give it some research. But it may be really interesting to include in a future video. I may reach out to you again in the future in case you are interested in contributing some of your ideas :)
Pourquoi en anglais?
The mistake is to say that councils are democratic. They are voted in for sure, but they are voted mainly for internal issues because they are much more important than EU politics. You can get voted in without even mentioning EU. Even selection for the head of the member state is often indirect.
Secondly, the voters generally have no idea how EU works and that is not because they are stupid, but because EU is a complicated bureacratic monster that is difficult to understand. If you asked 10 citizens to explain the basics, I think you might get one who knows this stuff if you are lucky. This shows in the lack of interest in EU politics in internal elections and the low voter turnout in the EU elections.
Agree with a lot of what you say. The EU needs to reform. The difficulty is getting all 27 members to agree on reform. Will be a very difficult process with lots of opt outs
Olaf Scholz is not the German head of state, the President of Germany is. I think what you mean is the European Council consists of heads of state & government. Otherwise the monarchs within the EU would play a far more active role.
Can you make a video of how the eu would look like if you scale up the swiss model
In a month or so :)
I bought it for myself. I write my name in on every ballot.
They should adopt the swiss model. It has served us well. It gets mentioned far too seldom. Subbed.
great to have you on board. And I agree, we don't really hear much about the Swiss model
The question is, can you use that for an entity as large and influental as the EU?
Yes it will be difficult to implement.. how would you split the Union? 7 regions with heads of state that work together? I am looking into it for a future video :)
@@EUMadeSimple really looking forward to watching that! The idea of our 7 heads of state is that they lead a department (energy, infrastructure, military, etc.) so it would be best if every member contributes people to represent them in those departments. I don't think it would be all that difficult to implement. Switzerland has a huge culturally, ethnic, religious, linguistic (4 main languages next to our dialect, 3 of which represent a big part of Europe being French, German and Italian) and geographic variety which makes it ideal as a model for other European countries. At least, I don't see a reason it should not be implemented on a country level. Power is much more distributed and a single voter has more impact than most voters in other countries.
@@cucco1 This really sounds nice! You know what policy you vote for which department... This could also increase voters
When we have hungry still in EU Union I think they wright.they just used our taxes and dance with EU Union enemy 🇩🇰💪❤
Britain is very culturally different from mainland Europe. Having foreigners decide our laws and freedoms is hardly in the interests of a island national. Britain has always had an individualist outlook,the loner amongst friends.The eu reminds more of the roman empire with ultimate power very much centralised.
"... hardly the interest of an island national" ? Malta, Cyprus and Ireland seem to have no difficulty in that. Could it just be something uniquely british ?
@@hansnijsen9012 The difference is Britain colonised these islands,some for many hundreds of years.
@@colinsmith1288 excuses for not living up to one's commitments. Cherrypicking, cherrypicking. We're used to it. Luckily we don't have to put up with your nonsense anylonger. Bye bye.
@@hansnijsen9012 l wish your country well. I only have issue with Germany and France. Both countries l cannot stand.. The rest of Europe l am okay with. But it does feel good to have our island back. In particular l love the Greeks,the polish and the Portuguese and Cypriots,great people.
@@colinsmith1288 Your island has always been yours. Your country always was independant. You just never knew. You will learn that later. Because you britts are totaly ignorant of what the EU is and how it works. Your country failed to take up it's role and influence in the organisation. And you've send pupits instead of politicians to represent you. But that isn't anybody's fault over here is it ? And frankly I find your hatred against the french or the germans laughable.
Please next make a full list of all people running and working for the EU, it will be soon needed...
Yes
You should compare the EU to France & I believe it would make it easier to understand for more people. For example, the European Council & French President nominate a candidate for the Commission President & Prime Minister, then the European & French Parliament confirm whether the candidate can command a majority of support. The EU is basically semi presidential.
It is a good idea. Maybe I will create a refresh of this video next year
Yeah, but the WTO is not a government. The EU is.
That EU is not democratic should be known for everyine, but people keep shuttting their eyes and ear for any critisism on this matter. For example people point at the "right to veto" any decision in the EU. But does this right to veto actually work? Not really, as any country that veto will be seriously bullied by the established powers of EU. For example Poland doe snot want to take many immigrants, as they do not want their country to be ruined like Italy, France and UK. So the EU want to slap on a fine of 22.000 Euro for every immigrant Poland refuse to take!!! Insane. Another example, today, 4th October EU have decided to slap a 36% penalty duty on every car that is imported from China, this is on top of the 10% which was already there. One should think that a veto from one of the members could stop this? But no, for countries to stop this actually 15 countries with at least 65% of the population in the EU is needed to stop it, hardly democratic... That the customs duty for cars from China is probaby very much needed is another matter, as democracy should decide regardless.
But not the commission they're appointed and they have the most power
Looks like you make a mistake most people do : representative democracy is NOT democracy.
Representatives may be elected democratively but to be a real democracy, you need to be able to dismiss them whenever you consider they don't represent you anymore.
Sorry but your definition of democracy is far from what democracy means. We should take each country as one person in parliament because now if we take the number of people living in a country and then give more votes to those then as is now country with less people in it doesn't have anything to say and that will be the end of eu. Why stay if Germany and France are the one's that say what should happen? And they have now showed in crisis times they are hopeless and only focused on their luxury of live.
All that has been taken into consideration with some of the foundational laws that protect and give the smaller members more power.
We don't need any kind of empire at all. The eastern member states suffered for 40 years in the Soviet empire, we do not want to be part of another empire. Western Europe does not understand the eastern member states, which had to fight hard for their freedom. We don't want to start all over again, to go along colonial lines again. An empire is an empire, it doesn't matter who leads it. The goal of empires was always to colonize weaker member states. This can be the only goal of the EU too. Yes, the goal is that the eastern member states are forced to follow western, especially German, goals.
The union is already very similar to the autocratic, oppressive, blackmailing nature of the Soviet empire. We do not believe that the Western European empire will be any better. Europe can only be made great again by an alliance of strong, sovereign nation-states, and not by one half of Europe colonizing the other half of Europe.
Is that what you learned from the Ukraine war and being sidelined since WW2? The EU is the only chance that these proud old and most importantly small. Every country so far that hasn't been a part of one of the major players has been attacked and been interfered with by either China, India, Russia or the US. The only reason why you don't see this is because the EU is very benevolent. It hasn't done any of this.
No one has forced anyone to join the EU. Your empire argument completely false flat when talking about the EU. It may want to become bigger but as long as it isn't being hostile towards others in that pursuit, then it's completely fine. Also, all the eastern members willingly joined. I can tell this much as well. Their votes matter as much as the votes from either Germany and France which you are so scared of.
It's also not more oppressive than what your own country is. You would be surprised with just how much autonomy you guys have. On the point of blackmailing. Please provide any evidence of this, at all. On you last point of the EU needing to be an alliance of strong nation-states. Did you see how incompetent we were when handling an external threat because we are that divided now? We will never be strong or have any real capability with what you want. We need to pool our resources. It will help every member and make sure that no one is slacking.
I've seen everything you have said so many times before and it's all from nationalists who has been lied to by someone. The EU doesn't care about your national dish or national holidays. As long as you behave decently then it won't do anything. At worst it might push into place some stronger rights for workers. When you actually look at the laws that the EU has passed. You will be shocked how decent the vast majority are.
There is no place for small countries anymore. You will always be a pawn to one of the big players. You can live a fantastic life, but all of a sudden one of the big guys want something from you and then it's over. You will be left with nothing instead a very decent chunk of what you had before. Here is some examples. The middle-east has been torn apart by the US, leaving several countries almost completely destroyed.. Bhutan is being encroached on by China. Hongkong has been taken over by China. Georgia lost a part of it to Russia. Ukraine lost Crimea to Russia. Guyana is in the process of losing territory to Venezuela. These are all some of the recent ones and they have all happened within the last 20 years. The small guys will always be bullied by the big guys. And here you are, complaining about the EU that does non of this. The only expansion it ever did was when a smaller country wanted to join the Union. You would rather lose everything to one of the bad ones than join with the one that is by far the most benevolent.
This is what Nigel Farage kept repeating over and over again all the time when he was a EMP. ... Unelected ... Unelected ... Unelected.
And that's what they are.
@@grimreaper8220 So much so that Farage actually got elected into the parliament, the irony in someone screaming unelected, not democracies only for him to get elected to the European Parliament.
At the end of the day, repeat a lie enough time and enough people will buy into it, especially the ignorant ones which there are a lot of them, which is why when someone smart argues a case against an Eurosceptic, the Eurosceptics argument falls flat on the ground that they start to look like a radical loon, we saw a lot of that in the UK on Brexit that reality had no impact on facts lol.
@@grimreaper8220 well he was elected, how do you think he got there?
Plus commission is not elected, but neither are ministers let’s say ir heads of governments, yet no one complains about that. And it would be kinda stupid to vote directly for the minister for education lets say
@@andrejs4984 The commission is the only one that can put forward laws to the m.e.ps. So it is a big deal that they are unelected.
@@grimreaper8220 When you refuse to open your eyes. You refuse to see what's actually in front of you. You are being lied to.
Central banking is not democratic, end of discussion.
Why von der Leyen works for Anglosphere, not Europeans for whom she is responsible? It is her personal benefit, which goes against the benefit of European people. This is "Democracy" that she is pushing for, and can be called corruption in democratic nations. Be reminded emotion beats logical thinking.
The problem is that the EU wants to be a federal state but hasn't asked if people want it to be, if they want further enlargement or integration. I would rather a trade bloc with no European Parliament, no Schengen, no single currency, no President or Commission.
yea, we definitely feel unheard, even as germans. I remember having a discussion about the fairness of the representation, and i remember that no one cared because we all disliked the EU institutions
Hey Kelvin, thanks for the comment. I am intrigued by what you said as I would like to understand why people don't feel heard. And why there is a dislike for the EU institutions. Would you like to elaborate? Its potentially good feedback for future videos :)
@@EUMadeSimple I believe reason we all felt unheard can be boiled down to the process in which ideas and initiatives brought forth by the public get reviewed or passed into law. The amount of Time and number of reviews these proposals undergo and get prevented by the smallest bureaucratic bit Made it feel as if the idea was to make it impossible for public ideas to get implemented or even discussed on a higher level. That way our trust in the institutions of the EU just dwindled.
I mean the german government is the Same and we also Made fun of that all the time. For example, our security Service has to notify you per Letter before being allowed to collect your data or Listen to your phonecalls.
Please keep in mind that 1. This discussion has taken place a few months back and i dont remember any details and 2. The class was only extra credit so no one really remembered any names or took time to truly understand them further than the oversimplified explanations that were given to us. I don't know the term for whatever initiative (or proposed ideas or what they are called )given to whatever parliament, especially Not in english.
I just come from a 5 hour Revision Session so i hope my sentences Made any sense and i got my point across
Edit: i think another Problem was the way laws are implemented throughout the EU. Because they have to still respect the law of every Single country, and sometimes they are only guidelines to just ignore or arent enforced properly. I remember this being Part of one discussion.
We were all quite critical of everything anyway
I agree that things take way too long XD.
Part of the problem I feel is that each nation state has different interests and block ideas that don't suit them. Especially, when it comes to Foreign Policy and taxation as you need unanimous agreement accorss all member states :)
Ich wohne auch in Deutschland also kann ich verstehen wie du dich fühlst. Es ist alles sehr bürokratisch
@@EUMadeSimple
Biases and scapegoating
@@thatdogguy9838
show me 1
I advise you to take a look at the early US or the seven provinces
Did she say this is where I get all shitty?
as a person who lives in the eu i think that it is good that the eu exists
As a persom who lives in the EU I think it should die, and for all Dutch Europhile polticians who forced us into this corporate fascist uinion; to be prosecuted for high treason and crimes against humanity commited against the Dutch people.
Ultimately, the question of what degree of democratic practice can we assign to the EU, doesn't have much to do with how the EU conducts itself toward member nations -- and there's the rub!
The EU is becoming more authoritarian & dictatorial over time.
The EU parliament being elected or not is basically irrelevant to how it treats member nations.
What do you mean with "Conducts itself"? Do you have specific examples that you are referring to?
@@EUMadeSimple Hi, I've only just noticed your reply and question as to how the EU conducts itself towards member nations.
My apologies, but you have caught me on the hop with your query.
I was not really expecting a reply to my post.
I would need to check my sources to give you good specific accurate examples but I need a little time.
I will do so and post it in a future current video you do, under my heading - HOW EU TREATS MEMBER NATIONS.
With any luck, you might spot it.
I would have thought it was common knowledge and you would have more info than me re this.
Poland, Hungary, Greece, Cypress? come immediately to mind.
The EU is an economic bully.
In general, I'll just say, for now, the EU passes laws and wants to override sovereign nation's laws and demands compliance, in areas that make no sense if the EU is just a benign common trading block.
But do make sense if you are trying to impose central federal government control over member states.
It was known when the Euro was introduced that it would cause significant economic difficulties. The Euro was not just purely economic but seen as a way to promote federation. A federation of states needs a common currency. Notice England kept right out of it.
I'll finish with this observation from Otto Von Hapsburg, from the old ruling family of the Holy Roman Empire;
"The citizens of the EU live by the tradition of the Holy Roman Empire but they know not by what tradition they live"
He knew what the EU really is, but do we?
It's no accident that one of Europe's highest honours is the Charlemagne Prize.
@@glenwillson5073 No country was forced to enter the EU or adopt the euro, they chose it themselves and acepted certain conditions, for good and for bad. And it's quite apparent that the good outweighs the bad, just look at how much poorer countries have evolved since entering the EU and look at all the countries queing up for membership.
When the last crisis hit and countries like Greece and Portugal were deep in shit, whose fault was that? The EU? Or those countries' governments who just spent money recklessly?
Poland and Hungary are creating laws in their countries that go against European values of democracy and equality. By enterering the EU, they formaly agreed to uphold those values, so, the EU has full rights to intervene.
And if I was a citizen of one of those countries, I'd be very thankful to the EU for trying to protect my rights, when my own government is trying to take them away.
@@glenwillson5073
you got it wrong the EU is not only a trading bloc
@@thodan467 Yes, exactly, the EU is not only a trading block.
That's my major point, it's not only a trading block, it's something else.
I'm glad you understand that critical point.
That's the number one reason for Brexit - It's not only a trading block!
We had kind of the same structure of parliament in Lower Canada (Quebec) in the 1800s and before so what you’re saying is bs because my people rebelled for that reason 🤣 kind of structure that keep elected people to propose laws and legislate. We did a rebellion for that kind of shit
I'm not keen to see a fully federated, fully nuclear armed EU, but I regard this pro-EU Channel as well worth watching, lots of info well presented - long may it continue.
But if this channel thinks it can present the EU in a sufficiently positive light to tempt England back, in that regard it is doomed to failure.
England will never rejoin the EU, because at its very heart, England is not out ultimately only because of concerns over democracy or trade or economics or immigration etc. etc.
England is out for the age old reason -- England, never has and never will, allow itself to be dominated and controlled either economically, politically or religiously by a Continental based political or religious entity of any kind.
To not understand this fundamental factor, is to not understand the history of England & Europe since the time of Rome. And it is to not really understand Brexit at its most fundamental level.
Hi Glen,
I appreciate your feedback and really like having multiple perspectives on this channel. So thanks fot your input.
My aim is not to reverse Brexit... My aim is to try and explain how the EU works :). And also to give people my take on current issues and EU actions. When there is an opinion piece I will be sure to mention it in my videos :)
@@EUMadeSimple Yes, I didn't really think the purpose of your channel was to help reverse Brexit. I was being a bit retororical, more a reference to various posts and comments re the whole issue in general.
I do believe there are "interesting times" ahead in the EU though.
I think in the long run you will dislike the other options more
England was ruled by by french from 1066 till at least the end of the angevin realm
@@thodan467 I'm not quite sure what you mean "dislike like the other options more", what other options are currently on the table?
The Norman's are an interesting one. They were French speaking but not actually French for the most part. But the important aspect is, they were absorbed. England remained largely independent from any sort of Continental Empire.
The Norman's don't affect my point that England will never be a part of any Continental European organisation -- that's why they already be a-gone & ain't ever be a-coming back.
@@glenwillson5073
Look at Russia
Analyse the Situation in Africa
Look at China
You may find that a well functioning, powerful EU is your best hope
England was part of the normannic - angevin empire at this time
Ah yes. EU propaganda YT. The EU literally isn't a democracy, but an aristocracy. All power resides within seats that are appointed by the ruling class. That's the literal definition of an aristocracy
I think the most democratic election would be a lottery. :D
The problem is, do we actually want a more democratic eu?
Because there is something that happens when democracy comes in: incompetence and electoralism.
There is a reason why I trust the EU but not my government.
And thats because the tecnocrátic part of the European institutions is what prevents it from becoming populist/electoralist
I suspect the Eurosceptics don't want a more democratic EU because it will make it a lot harder for them to argue their case against the project, which is basically, many of them don't want the EU project full stop.
The way the EU is now, makes it a lot easier for Eurosceptics to make their case and point out the flaws, a more democratic one would actually be worse for them because it would weaken the hardcore Eurosceptics whiles pulling a lot of the moderate ones away from them.
Personally, I do think the EU needs to connect more with the people and I do think there needs to be more involvement from the EU and the people as the EU feels very distant for many Europeans and it's that what is fuelling the Eurosceptic movements.
Reforms to the EU are needed but we don't want to copy another system that is already there like the US or UK because both look like a poor democratic system that rarely seems to listen to the people.
Europeans in the EU have a golden chance to create a new much better democratic system if they fight for it.
Mask off fascist.
✨ Ｐｒⓞм𝕠𝕤𝐌
yes (de)(moto) cr attic the house you mean my house im suffered of and dont live in or with bet yet still am subjugated to slavery and impoverishment by not being paid myself and paying others sum how through their self being proprietors of me with out payment and not of i that i know of or can do anything about as their is what looks like ann electric wall seperating 1 half of me the left tower from the right side of me that your are now re en towering i should be on the front page of the news world wide by now for the amount of press on me !!!!
Dexit
And Nexit
Euxit
The EU-Parlament is organised by big EU-parties that receive direct financial not just from the parliament budget but also from political foundations from certain rich eu member states but also from private, cooporative and non-eu political institutions. This financial and lobbyist activity questionates the independence of the EU parliament members, also many times some deputies eve vote against the interests of their own country.
The leadership choice for EU Parliament topic commissions is also very questionable. There is a strong sentiment that the EU parliament is disconnected from the reality living in an virtual EU Fantasy world. Also the EU Parliament finances propaganda for a federalist forces without no mandate for such, which is obvious anti democratic to try to silence divergent voices.
The choice of the commissaries, ministers-like of the EU commission is very uneven and is done not by any democratic accountability but the by the negotiating strength of certain countries.
The EU is based on an ideal of check and balances, which would be good, if the weakest parts would have a veto vote, in theory yes, but is has been abused not to recognise that power. Some states and its legitim elected governments have been questioned if not even discredited by the EU commission or even by EU institutions. The abuse of power is becoming more and more latent with the years. I would remind that the origin of power is and will stay within the national states. The sovereignty borrowed by the EU belongs in base to the people, it is incorporated by the different national institutions and their constitutions and democratic systems. The EU in trying to hide it or to presents it self as supra-national, above national law is mining democracy on its base, discredits itself. Resistence has been growing in many countries.
Addressing the errors of configuration of the EU as a all or clarifying the borders of power of each institution would me reforming the treaties which is very dangerous and almost impossible to preview full support of all member states. It is clear that some states have much more power within the EU institutions than other. The abuse of power for some institutions is supported exactly by these states while others perceive a real treat to their national institutions.
The indirect election of the EU commission by democratic bodies does not make it at all democratic at all, specially when the electing body has almost no power compared by the elected body.
My personal opinion is that a certain political family of thought has taken over the EU institutions and has been expanding like an Octopus, a mafia using the EU political parties, perverting the initial spirit of all founding treaties that lead to the EU. This will have to be addressed.
It's good to see comments from people who are clear eyed about the real nature of the EU and can see through the fog.
The Commission only has to get lucky once, the voter has to get lucky none stop.
WTO/NATO & The Commonwealth don't impose excessive laws.
Actually WTO imposes a lot of (trade)rules, though for sure not exactly laws that impact most people. Then again how many EU laws can you name that impacted you or anyone you know negatively?
@@MDP1702 WTO in affect sets out how countries deal with each other, not what they deal with each other.
For example, the Most Favoured Nation rules say you can't give preferential treatment to one nation and not another, unless a trade agreement is signed. I.E. You can do whatever you like, just sign a deal.
No country's obliged to impose tariffs, or laws restricting the rights of their citizens, and no country is asked to pay a _tithe._
Trump even proposed the Fair & Reciprocal Trade Act that would pretty much have bypassed WTO rules, without even notifying their withdrawal.
As for EU laws that impact me, the 15% common external tariff is one, it affects me every time I buy over priced junk from the EU instead of the better quality, more competitive foreign produce, because protectionist trade practises price the better stuff out of the market.
Or what about the Digital Services Act, yet another censorship bill designed to further pressure big tech to be more trigger happy when it comes to stifling speech?
It doesn't matter if I can name the law, or name the exact passage, or quote the very line that I have an issue with, the fact is, the EU keeps coming up with new BS laws, designed to force companies to spend prohibitive amounts of money on overpriced lawyers, just to know whether or not the wick of the £2 candles they sell are too long/short to be legal. And if you think that's me exaggerating, you really need to have a closer look at the EU before you defend it.
Most laws will always effect some people positively and other people somewhat negatively. This is the case in every country. But there are plenty of laws that the EU has created that I think have done a lot of good: Free Roaming is the most obvious. But then there is also the Consumer Rights Directive and the Flights Compensation (one that I personally love). Not to mention the Citizens Right Directive. This is just to name a few as the list goes on.
And lets also not forget, a point I also tried to make in the video. Every citizen in the EU gets to vote. A vote that counts. These laws are not made without getting through the parliament and Council, where countries are represented.
So, in the case of the "£2 candles they sell are too long/short to be legal" was probably something that most memberstates (potentially including yours) agree upon. I am not sure ofc as I didnt look it up :) But that is how the system works.
@@Pax.Britannica *WTO in affect sets out how countries deal with each other, not what they deal with each other.*
How does this contradict with what I said?
*the 15% common external tariff is one, it affects me every time I buy over priced junk from the EU instead of the better quality, more competitive foreign produce, because protectionist trade practises price the better stuff out of the market.*
Considering it is 15%, the 'junk' from the EU (which is usually of higher quality) can't be that much more expensive, else you'd just take the 15% extra cost. So what for example did this impact, which specific items did this negatively impact?
Also every country has such tarrifs set up unless there is a trade deal with another nation. If they don't set such tarrifs, it is only going to be to the detriment of that nation long term.
*Or what about the Digital Services Act, yet another censorship bill designed to further pressure big tech to be more trigger happy when it comes to stifling speech?*
How did it truly impact you? You do realise that the UK is out-regulating the EU when it comes to online services? Or more than likely you just don't hear or notice that because everything happens in the background, not impacting you, just what happens with these new EU laws.
*the EU keeps coming up with new BS laws*
So does the UK government, shouldn't you worry about that? Maybe split of your region from the UK?
If you think the UK isn't regulating a lot, think again. Boris himself once used to complain about an 'EU-rule', for it to turn out be a UK rule.
@@MDP1702 It contradicts what you said because countries can do whatever they like, they only abide by the rules to make it easier for other countries and their own people to understand what they're doing. And it's not imposed on anyone.
*which specific items did this negatively impact?*
See, there you are asking for specifics. I don't need to give specifics when it applies to every single damn item I buy from outside the EU.
*every country has such tarrifs set up unless*
Not Singapore. And so what? They are still laws applied by the EU, and as a result of leaving, those tariffs have been lowered under the UKGT.
*If they don't set such tarrifs, it is only going to be to the detriment of that nation long term.*
Tariffs are self harm, imposed only to protect a politicians voter base. From Adam smith, Milton Friedman to Thomas Sowell, even Karl Marx, economists understand this. With countries as small as Singapore to countries as large as the British Empire (who pioneered Unilateral free-trade) both benefitted tremendously from it.
The only exception to Free-trade, as conceded by all the aforementioned economists, are matters of national security. The EU buying all their oil from Russia for instance. But still, we can rely on allies, the US, Australia and as much as I dislike saying this, the EU (for now 🥴) we do not need to impose tariffs on them.
*How did it truly impact you?*
By increasing the risk of me being censored. A more censorious world is a more dangerous one.
*UK is out-regulating the EU*
Given that you think it's OK to ask for specifics, I'm going to ask that you give me the exact regulations that the UK has "out-regulating the EU" with.
*shouldn't you worry about that?*
Yes I should. And I do. I just don't want to also worry about what BS laws the EU insists on enforcing.
*Boris himself once used to...*
Specifics please.
gente pessima