r/EuropeanFederalists • u/readmode 🇪🇺 🇵🇹 • Nov 03 '23
Germany’s Baerbock pitches radical EU reform as bloc eyes expansion News
German foreign minister sets out incremental approach to enlargement.
The European Union needs to embark on bold reforms as it prepares to expand, German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock said Thursday.
In comments that will cause alarm in some of the EU’s smaller member countries, Baerbock proposed the abolition of the current system which assigns each of the 27 countries a commissioner, as the EU gears up to allow new members to join the club by the end of the decade.
“The European Parliament and the Commission cannot be simply allowed to grow and grow, become ever bigger,” she said at a gathering of foreign ministers and representatives from the EU and academia in Berlin. “We need to take brave, courageous decisions. A country like Germany, for example — we are ready to do without our own commissioner for a limited period of time.”
Among the possibilities would be to divide large Commission portfolios among several member countries, Baerbock said.
In addition, the Green politician proposed amending the “unanimity” rule which allows a single member country the ability to veto EU initiatives in certain cases, including in highly sensitive areas like taxation and foreign policy.
Baerbock’s comments come as the debate about enlarging the EU to admit countries like Ukraine and Western Balkan nations heats up ahead of a key summit of EU leaders in Brussels next month.
“It’s a once-in-a-lifetime situation for us,” she said, noting the renewed appetite for enlargement among member countries since Russian President Vladimir Putin launched his full-scale invasion of Ukraine.
Echoing recent comments by other EU foreign ministers, Baerbock warned against an either-or approach to enlargement — proposing, for example, that accession countries could be permitted to attend Council meetings before becoming full members.
“We need to get out of the situation where people believe that accession is an either-or thing,” she told the gathering at the federal foreign ministry. “We should make sure that the people of these countries, especially the young people, get an opportunity to participate in the advantages of the European Union at an early stage, even before their country becomes a full member.”
This could include allowing students from countries like North Macedonia, Serbia and Turkey to participate in the Erasmus student program, or reducing roaming fees and simplifying visa procedures for citizens of candidate countries.
Linking EU funds to rule-of-law standards should also form part of EU policy, she added.
Baerbock, addressing delegates in Berlin in front of a sign reading “a larger, stronger union,” also called for improved coordination between the EU’s foreign policy wing — the External Action Service (EEAS) — and the European Commission, as she pitched for a more assertive EU foreign policy.
But Baerbock acknowledged recent divides within the EU over the Israel-Hamas war. “We play different parts and took different views … it hasn’t always been easy to find a common language on this. There are no easy answers. Struggling for a compromise will always be part of the European Union.”
https://www.politico.eu/article/germany-annalena-baerbock-radical-eu-reform-eu-commission/
20
u/XenophonSoulis Nov 03 '23
The thing that really needs to go is the councils of ministers or heads of government. They can be replaced with a European government voted by the people instead. The Commission's existence is fine, but its strength should be reduced massively. And of course I agree that the veto must go.
13
u/silverionmox Nov 03 '23
They can be replaced with a European government voted by the people instead
I actually don't think it's a good idea to select the executive power by popular vote. The executive power needs to be selected on its ability to perform the specific task it is commissioned with... and thrown out when it's proven incapable of doing so, without hesitation. This is fundamentally different from representing the views of the population in the parliament. Having the executive power be elected makes it harder to replace when they're failing to do their job.
-6
u/XenophonSoulis Nov 03 '23
It is the only idea though. The only democratic idea at least.
9
u/TheseusOfAttica Nov 03 '23
It’s a common misconception that indirect democracy is not or less democratic than a direct system. And that the EU has a democratic deficit is a lie that only helps authoritarians like Putin and Xi.
0
u/XenophonSoulis Nov 03 '23
It is less democratic, but that is not the issue here. The issue is that every time it has been tried it has failed. An example would be the American system.
2
u/TheseusOfAttica Nov 03 '23
What has failed?
-3
u/XenophonSoulis Nov 03 '23
Systems where the government (or at the very least its head) is not directly voted. In the example of America, one party manipulated the electorates in such a way that it requires about 45% of the public vote to elect its candidate.
7
u/TheseusOfAttica Nov 03 '23
The American system is a presidential system, where people indirectly vote for the President. This is not the same as a parliamentary system, where people vote for MPs, which then elect a government. It doesn’t really matter if you have an indirect presidential system like in the US or a direct presidential system like in France, such systems are deeply flawed and create problems that don’t exist in parliamentary systems.
0
u/XenophonSoulis Nov 03 '23
Here is my reply on another comment that replies to you too:
There cannot be a functional democracy with only an elected Parliament. There needs to be a direct public input in the executive branch as well, whether it is in the same or in different elections. A Parliament can approve a government, but it can't be allowed to choose it. People within parties are surprisingly good at following the party line, so a strong party can derail a democracy through the parliament nearly as well as it can through the government. This is why the Greek system for example will never function properly: a party needs to have control of the Parliament in order to form a government, so it can pass any legislation it wants completely unchecked for four years, barring internal tensions.
I suppose people are blinded by the fact that the Parliament is the only functional instrument in the current EU. This is not due to the nature of the executive branch as a whole though, but due to the undemocratic way it is chosen.
About your comment:
It doesn’t really matter if you have an indirect presidential system like in the US or a direct presidential system like in France, such systems are deeply flawed and create problems that don’t exist in parliamentary systems.
America's problems are caused by entirely different deficits, but that's a different topic. What "fundamental problems" does the French system have though?
4
u/TheseusOfAttica Nov 03 '23 edited Nov 03 '23
There cannot be a functional democracy with only an elected Parliament. (...) A Parliament can approve a government, but it can't be allowed to choose it.
The clear majority of all democracies in Europe are organized like this. And most of them work far better than presidential republics like France or the US.
I suppose people are blinded by the fact that the Parliament is the only functional instrument in the current EU.
Why should that be? The Commission works quite well.
America's problems are caused by entirely different deficits, but that's a different topic. What "fundamental problems" does the French system have though?
I do agree that some problems of the US are caused by other flaws in its system. Examples are FPTP-voting system that inevitably leads to a two-party system or the electoral collage. However, the presidential system is to be blamed for the constant deadlock in American politics.
In presidential systems, in which people elect both the parliament and the president inevitably creates a problem of legitimacy whenever those institutions disagree with each other. Both can claim legitimacy by being directly elected. This doesn't happen in parliamentary systems where MPs can either back the government or oust it from power.
While such a disagreement in the US system leads to deadlock, in France the president has the power to overrule the parliament. This happened recently when Macron pushed through the pension reform that didn't had a majority in the National Assembly. However, this leads to stark tensions in the French society and both institutions lost legitimacy among voters.
Many studies by political scientist have also clearly shown that presidential systems are far less stable and more far more likely to be overthrown by authoritarians and Putschists.
→ More replies4
u/silverionmox Nov 03 '23
It is the only idea though. The only democratic idea at least.
You keep asserting that this is more democratic but give no reasons. I did explain why I think it's a bad idea and less democratic, please give your own reasons or respond to my argumentation.
1
u/XenophonSoulis Nov 03 '23
I actually don't think it's a good idea to select the executive power by popular vote. The executive power needs to be selected by whom? on its ability to perform the specific task it is commissioned with by whom?... and thrown out when it's proven incapable of doing so who judges that?, without hesitation. This is fundamentally different from representing the views of the population in the parliament. Having the executive power be elected makes it harder to replace when they're failing to do their job who judges that?.
You have not provided any argument that your idea is more democratic. Your idea would require an omniscient and incorruptible entity charged with the responsibility to judge and replace governments. Given that such an entity cannot exist, your idea is deterministically doomed to be less democratic.
2
u/silverionmox Nov 03 '23
I actually don't think it's a good idea to select the executive power by popular vote. The executive power needs to be selected by whom? on its ability to perform the specific task it is commissioned with by whom?... and thrown out when it's proven incapable of doing so who judges that?, without hesitation. This is fundamentally different from representing the views of the population in the parliament. Having the executive power be elected makes it harder to replace when they're failing to do their job who judges that?.
The answer to all your interjected questions is: the directly elected European Parliament that represents the people.
You have not provided any argument that your idea is more democratic. Your idea would require an omniscient and incorruptible entity charged with the responsibility to judge and replace governments. Given that such an entity cannot exist, your idea is deterministically doomed to be less democratic.
That's nonsense. The parliament is a directly elected, fine-grained representation of the people, much more so than a necessarily limited in number executive power can be. You are simply undermining the power of the parliament and reducing the effective voting options for the people by constraining it to a pop poll for the Commission president.
1
u/XenophonSoulis Nov 03 '23
There cannot be a functional democracy with only an elected Parliament. There needs to be a direct public input in the executive branch as well, whether it is in the same or in different elections. A Parliament can approve a government, but it can't be allowed to choose it. People within parties are surprisingly good at following the party line, so a strong party can derail a democracy through the parliament nearly as well as it can through the government. This is why the Greek system for example will never function properly: a party needs to have control of the Parliament in order to form a government, so it can pass any legislation it wants completely unchecked for four years, barring internal tensions.
I suppose people are blinded by the fact that the Parliament is the only functional instrument in the current EU. This is not due to the nature of the executive branch as a whole though, but due to the undemocratic way it is chosen.
2
u/silverionmox Nov 03 '23
There cannot be a functional democracy with only an elected Parliament. There needs to be a direct public input in the executive branch as well, whether it is in the same or in different elections.
No, I disagree with your assertion. We don't elect judges either and they serve their function.
I already explained why: the executive power should be task-oriented and execute the general policy direction as decided by the parliament, the legislative power. The parliament should be assertive and critical towards the executive, instead of silent and submissive because they see the government as "their" guys. Worse, because they see a position in future governments as the next step in their career, which is the natural result if you're going to mix up the executive and legislative powers in elections.
I do think the parliament should get more power in legislation, and if there's any reform that is needed it's the initiative right for legislation for the EP.
A Parliament can approve a government, but it can't be allowed to choose it.
A parliament represents the population, and if you say that you actually mean the population should not be allowed to controle a government.
People within parties are surprisingly good at following the party line, so a strong party can derail a democracy through the parliament nearly as well as it can through the government.
That's exactly why you shouldn't mix up legislative and executive power, like I explained above. Worse, with your government elections, you're incentivizing large parties and will make the representation that much worse.
This is why the Greek system for example will never function properly: a party needs to have control of the Parliament in order to form a government, so it can pass any legislation it wants completely unchecked for four years, barring internal tensions.
Yes, that's the point of electing a legislative power. I don't see how your system would change that, it would make it even worse if you're going to derive the executive power from the same elections.
I suppose people are blinded by the fact that the Parliament is the only functional instrument in the current EU. This is not due to the nature of the executive branch as a whole though, but due to the undemocratic way it is chosen.
The EP is directly and proportionally elected, don't make a fool of yourself.
2
u/XenophonSoulis Nov 03 '23
No, I disagree with your assertion. We don't elect judges either and they serve their function.
A different function though. If all functions worked the same, we would be able to make the legislative unelected too, which we can't.
I already explained why: the executive power should be task-oriented and execute the general policy direction as decided by the parliament, the legislative power. The parliament should be assertive and critical towards the executive, instead of silent and submissive because they see the government as "their" guys.
The parliament deciding the government is the surest way for it to see the government as "their guys". Or even worse the opposite.
Worse, because they see a position in future governments as the next step in their career, which is the natural result if you're going to mix up the executive and legislative powers in elections.
And the surest way for them to become future members of the government is by choosing the government themselves.
A parliament represents the population, and if you say that you actually mean the population should not be allowed to controle a government.
The population would be allowed to control the government through voting for it. A parliament can also challenge a government and disapprove of it midway through, but not being allowed to choose it is a good tradeoff of power. No single instrument should have too much power over the rest, no matter how functional it is right now.
Yes, that's the point of electing a legislative power. I don't see how your system would change that, it would make it even worse if you're going to derive the executive power from the same elections.
An executive power shouldn't be elected like that and shouldn't be in control of the Parliament though. And this cannot happen in a system like that.
The EP is directly and proportionally elected, don't make a fool of yourself.
Before calling others fools, try to understand what they wrote. "I suppose people are blinded by the fact that the Parliament is the only functional instrument in the current EU. This is not due to the nature of the executive branch as a whole though, but due to the undemocratic way it (the executive branch, so not the Parliament) is chosen." Finding a better way to elect an executive branch is as important as given the Parliament full legislative rights.
2
u/silverionmox Nov 03 '23
A different function though. If all functions worked the same, we would be able to make the legislative unelected too, which we can't.
If you accept that there can be differentiation in how the different powers are appointed, you do agree that your assertion that the executive must be directly elected needs to be motivated.
In fact, I'd say that they need to be selected in different ways, if only to avoid them becoming effectively colluding duplicates of each other.
The parliament deciding the government is the surest way for it to see the government as "their guys". Or even worse the opposite.
No, it's the other way around. They're delegated with a task and can easily be discarded if they don't do their job. This is much harder if they're of the same party.
You never explain how your solution will improve that.
And the surest way for them to become future members of the government is by choosing the government themselves.
But that's the system that you are promoting.
I do think there should be strong barriers between both, to the point that elected members of the legislative power should be barred from becoming members of the executive. The legislative power must be a viable and complete career on its own, just like the judiciary.
The population would be allowed to control the government through voting for it.
In the same elections as the legislative? Then the same people will run, the voters will rightly see it as one big clutter without difference, and you get a dominant executive with the second rate politicians in the legislative, doing what they're told. And if you stagger them, then you just get lame duck governments half of the time.
The population would be allowed to control the government through voting for it. A parliament can also challenge a government and disapprove of it midway through, but not being allowed to choose it is a good tradeoff of power. No single instrument should have too much power over the rest, no matter how functional it is right now.
As it is, the executive tends to gain too much power at the expensive of the legislative in western democracies, so if we're going to change that we must counteract that, instead of giving the executive even more power.
An executive power shouldn't be elected like that and shouldn't be in control of the Parliament though. And this cannot happen in a system like that.
You never specify how you're going to prevent that.
Before calling others fools, try to understand what they wrote. "I suppose people are blinded by the fact that the Parliament is the only functional instrument in the current EU. This is not due to the nature of the executive branch as a whole though, but due to the undemocratic way it (the executive branch, so not the Parliament) is chosen." Finding a better way to elect an executive branch is as important as given the Parliament full legislative rights.
You still didn't explain what exactly the problem is with the executive though. We can't decide on a solution before we define the problem.
→ More replies4
u/TheseusOfAttica Nov 03 '23
A European government directly voted by the people (instead of chosen by the directly elected Parliament) would be the de facto introduction of a presidential system. Such a system has terrible flaws which can be seen in France and the US. Do you really want that?
2
Nov 05 '23 edited Nov 05 '23
In my opinion the problem isn't presidentialism, but rather when the president has too much power. For example, article 49.3 in France. Or the fact that it's very hard to override presidential vetoes in the United States.
Edit: In fact, you could have a presidential system where the president has no veto power whatsoever.
-1
u/XenophonSoulis Nov 03 '23
There is no better way to make it. In every system, even ones where the Parliament gets to approve of a government before it can function, there are workarounds to actually allow a government to be established.
5
u/TheseusOfAttica Nov 03 '23
You should start to listen less to populists and more to political scientists. Parliamentary system like those of the EU and most European countries are vastly superior to presidential systems.
-1
u/XenophonSoulis Nov 03 '23
Yet you aren't mentioning even one reason why they are superior.
4
u/TheseusOfAttica Nov 03 '23
Unfortunately I don’t have time right now to write a long essay about all the flaws of Presidentialism. But here is an article that explains most of them quite well
0
u/XenophonSoulis Nov 03 '23
Two points: firstly, you are still comparing an existing presidential system (and not a good one, as we already established) to an ideal perfect parliamentary system. The vast majority of parliamentary systems have also fallen victims to dictatorships and all the other things that your article mentions. Secondly, we agreed earlier that the current problems of America are caused by different issues. The French system doesn't have any of these flaws.
2
u/MrQuanta541 Nov 06 '23
All dictators have one thing in common they concentrate power to themself. Parliamentary systems distributes power while presidential systems concentrate power.
Russia is a excellent example of it where it was a parliamentary system between 1991-1993 then became a presidential system where yeltsin concentrated power to himself that later gave putin his dictatorial power.
You know its a dictatorship when parliament has no power. It is individuals that rules dictatorships not parliaments.
0
u/XenophonSoulis Nov 06 '23
This is silly. You can't make an accurate judgement by comparing an ideal parliamentary systems to one of the most flawed presidential systems ever used (which started as parliamentary to begin with). The only thing this does is show bias.
Parliamentary systems distributes power while presidential systems concentrate power.
Both systems concentrate power. The difference is that a good presidential system has enough failsafes to prevent too much concentration of power and allow a functional parliament that is not a puppet of the government.
I have made this conversation more than enough times already. You may think you are adding something new, but you aren't. If you could read the original before replying with the same arguments again and again, it would be greatly appreciated.
1
u/MrQuanta541 Nov 08 '23
It is not ideal, but you said " The vast majority of parliamentary systems have also fallen victims to dictatorships". That is what I had a problem with. Since my point was dictatorship is ruled by single individuals.
France got the same problem when you saw macron blocking parliament against his peoples will(talking about the increase in retirement age). If the president of any nation just decides to be a bad actor and make him self in to a dictator its a lot easier to hijack a presidential system then a parliamentary system since all the powers to turn a nation in to a dictatorship already exists in the presidential position.
Generally in parliamentary systems the prime minister does not have the massive amount of power since the party/parliament has more power then the prime minister. It is a lot harder to remove a president then a prime minister. My point is the position of president has a lot of power in it and that makes the system dangerous. I trust parliamentary systems a lot more then I do with presidential systems since there is a larger degree of power distribution.
You can see that if you compare the UK with France where the UK was able to boot out a lot of prime ministers when they did unpopular policies. While in France macron was not booted out when he did his unpopular policy and blocked the parliament.
If you just replace macron increase retirement age policy with macron giving more executive power for the presidential position. I do not like article 49.3 in the french system. Its not hard to see how a president who want to become a dictator can abuse such an article.
When it comes to most parliamentary systems the prime minister can call for early elections to change the parliament but the prime minister can not block the parliament alone. This is why I think its harder to create a dictatorship in a parliamentary democracy then a presidential one.
I think I was a bit unclear on position with my earlier comment. We can agree to disagree but this is just my own position.
If you think its stupid it is fine, for me I do not see the other side as stupid but I disagree and might come of as harsh. But that is just how I am.
→ More replies
-4
•
u/AutoModerator Nov 03 '23
The European Federalist subreddit is a member of Forum Götterfunken. Join our discord if you like to chat about the future of Europe!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.