I am the problem with European elections

[andrewducker]

I know what my council elections are for. I am electing the people who decide who can built what where in my local town/village/city, who organise the rubbish being collected, who set my council tax.

I know what the General Election is for. I am electing the people who write the laws upon which the country is run.

I know what the Scottish elections are for. I am electing the people who write the laws which cover those areas devolved to Scotland.

The European elections? I know that they're important. I know that a lot of legislation is heavily influenced by the decisions made there. But unlike my local council (a single chamber who make decisions), Westminster (the Commons and Lords arguing amongst each other), or the Scottish Parliament (another single chamber), I have no idea how decisions are made there. The parliament clearly do _something_. But there's also the European Commission, which is made up of one member per country in the EU. How do they interact with them when it comes to forming laws? Who starts the laws off? Who can veto them? Does all of the different groups need to agree, or can some override others? And on top of that there's the Council of Europe, which _also_ has one member per state, but is somehow different from the Commission. How are they different? Why do we have both? No idea.

This is clearly my fault. I should educate myself. But if the European Parliament feels remote and mysterious to me, then goodness only knows how most people feel.

Do Americans feel this way? They have town councils, state legislatures, and then the Senate/Representatives/President. Is it clearer to them how their laws are made?

Clearly, this is something I should know more about. Anyone got any good pointers?

I just read this. It was fascinating. I don't feel any more illuminated about how a European Law comes into being though.

Comments

[matgb]

I don't feel any more illuminated about how a European Law comes into being though

I've read Maastricht, Nice and Amsterdam treaties (the last was negotiated while I was studying it which was useful). Not bothered with Lisbon or the Constitution-that-failed as friends still in the field did and, well, no longer need to understand it to get the degree.

And I don't really know how laws come into full effect nor can I clearly say what laws come from where (ie EU or UK level, we haven't got our glorified county councilDevolved Assembly yet).

But...

Big point, the next President of the EU Commission will be, by agreement of the main parties, elected by the Parliament, each of the main groups has put forward a candidate—ALDE (ie the Lib Dems and IIRC Fine Gael in Ireland & Alliance in Ulster) are backing Guy Verhoevstad (sp? think that's right), Cameron's lot are backing someone with no chance as they're not in a big enough group, UKIP are probably backing an openly racist foreigner without realising it and Labour'll be backing the Socialist candidate whoever that is, no idea what group if any the SNP are in.

At the moment, all laws and amendments are proposed by the Commisssion, some of them (basically, the stuff that requires unanimity in the Council) go only to the Council, but most, the stuff that needs a "Qualified Majority" is subject to CoDecision—that's the famous 70% figure that UKIP keep quoting without understanding. That needs a super majority in the Council (where countries get votes depending on their size but it's not fully proportional, you can look that up) and also agreement in the Parliament, which can now amend stuff but I'm vague on how.

Think of the Council as being a bit like the US Senate, but meeting in secret with each country having one rep with variable numbers of votes on some issues but an absolute veto on others. The Commission used to be apponted by the Council but Lisbon changed that and Parliament gets to approve appointments, Parliament has leveraged that to get to choose the President now but that's just an agreed thing not an actual legal power.

Commission is basically the Cabinet, they're ministers with executive powers that can also propose laws and changes.

And all of this is actually easier to understand/explain than Westminster (because, y'know, House of Lords is stupid, etc), but our media isn't interested and/or doesn't understand it themselves. Given several of our most prominent political commentators a) don't understand the electoral system for Westminster and b) still don't understand how coalitions work it should really surprise us that they understand stuff that's regularly In Foreign even less.

And as I typed that my memories are coming back, not sure that's a good thing.

One of the open goals Clegg missed in the TV debate with Farage was what the EU will look like in 10 years—a lot more open, a lot more democratic, a lot more accountable but UK voters will know nothing of it as the UK media isn't even televising the Commission President candidates debates, unlike everywhere else.

[inamac]

I rather suspect that quite a lot of the actual candidates for the election have no idea what the EU Parliament is *for*.

In the unlikely event that one turns up on my doorstep I may ask this question.

[matgb]

I read that Telegraph thing, it's not bad, bit biased in the eurosceptic direction but nothign horrifically wrong, biggest counterpoint:

Legislation is proposed by the European Commission, an unelected executive

The Prime Minister of the UK is appointed by the Queen, as her all of Her Majesty's Ministers. The Commission is appointed by the Council in consultation with the Parliament, but is overwhelmingly succesful politicians with strong careers. The whole "they're unelected bureacrats" line is so misleading it's silly, the Prime Minister isn't elected either. The Scottish First Minister actually is elected, indirectly, but that's very unusual in politics internationally.

[redbird]

It depends on the American, and I suspect one of the meaningful variables is how mobile they are. I'm still figuring out how the city council in my new location works, and it doesn't help that most of the press is focused on the larger city across the lake, so it was easier to get information on the Seattle City Council.

I grew up knowing quite a bit about the New York city and state governments (I still think the NY legislature could benefit from a competent family therapist), but that was partly the accident of my parents being involved in local politics.

Some of the differences are obvious—different shapes of primary elections, the fact that everything here is done by mail now—but I'm sure I'm missing things, questions it doesn't occur to me to ask.