I noticed this when I was in the European Parliament too. That MEPs of the 'pro-European' majority avoided any criticism of the European Commission/von der Leyen, because that was the 'pro-European' side against the 'Eurosceptics'. Such black and white thinking really stifles debate. And as an MEP, it's also your job to hold the European Commission accountable. If your indeed 'pro-EU', shouldn't you focus exactly on how the European Union can be improved, including the working of the Commission?
But how much parliamentary control is possible when any European legislative act depends on a supermajority in the Council? If the European governments that represents 60 per cent of the Union agree in something, almost inevitably the Parliament agrees. The EU is bicameral, and while attention goes to the Parliament, the real constraints are in the Council.
I agree with your analysis. However, it makes me go into depression and gives me the feeling that Europe is doomed. Increasing democratic legitimacy is necessary but not on anybody's agenda. The world order around us is in crisis and Europe is wasting this opprtunity for reform. Rather it seems like we are falling back into 19th century diplomacy. This time though the global powers are non—European so that Europe appears like a collection of Italian city states, cultured, with a glorious past, and on their path to dependency.
The Commision is not exactly a government: Its main task is legislative harmonization, and its structure and role is similar to the Swiss Federal Council. I wrote this three articles about Europe after the American Hegemony, that can be helpful to be too exigent with the European institutions:
In the first article, I examine the historical roots of the European Union (EU): Europe was an ecology of competing, often warring jurisdictions that, after the Second World War, were integrated into the American Pax Democratica. Our generational challenge is to maintain the greatest American legacy: the EU.
In the second article, the complex governance of the EU is characterised as a nomocracy, a harmonising and consociational confederacy which is less efficient but more robust than the other large international actors. Minimalistic institutional reform is proposed to strengthen European democracies in the age of populism.
The final instalment proposes policies to address technological dependency and the foreign policy stance of the post-American Europe: technological sovereignty, competition reform, and a renewed liberal order in Europe's near abroad:
Great article as always Luis, though it left me with a question. Wouldn't you say that the Commission's competences are the main hinder to its ability to actually be a political actor at all?
Yes, direct election could help raise its political legitimacy, but a body that has to initiate legislation as well as make sure it is complied with seems like a recipe for disaster.
Like you said in the begining with the JCJ quote, the commission will always tend to treat countries differently depending on its dependency on that country to pass legislation in the Council.
I think that while the Commission holds these two powers it will never be able to be effective at both. We need a new independent body to be the holder of the treaties giving the commission more leeway to act politically and go against national interests in the name of the Union as is supposed to by their oath.
I noticed this when I was in the European Parliament too. That MEPs of the 'pro-European' majority avoided any criticism of the European Commission/von der Leyen, because that was the 'pro-European' side against the 'Eurosceptics'. Such black and white thinking really stifles debate. And as an MEP, it's also your job to hold the European Commission accountable. If your indeed 'pro-EU', shouldn't you focus exactly on how the European Union can be improved, including the working of the Commission?
But how much parliamentary control is possible when any European legislative act depends on a supermajority in the Council? If the European governments that represents 60 per cent of the Union agree in something, almost inevitably the Parliament agrees. The EU is bicameral, and while attention goes to the Parliament, the real constraints are in the Council.
Fair point, an issue is also that the Council remains a ‘black box’ and decision making there is way too obscure
I agree with your analysis. However, it makes me go into depression and gives me the feeling that Europe is doomed. Increasing democratic legitimacy is necessary but not on anybody's agenda. The world order around us is in crisis and Europe is wasting this opprtunity for reform. Rather it seems like we are falling back into 19th century diplomacy. This time though the global powers are non—European so that Europe appears like a collection of Italian city states, cultured, with a glorious past, and on their path to dependency.
So institutional failure is a feature rather than a bug? Which means that problems build up until they are too big to be addressed.
The Commision is not exactly a government: Its main task is legislative harmonization, and its structure and role is similar to the Swiss Federal Council. I wrote this three articles about Europe after the American Hegemony, that can be helpful to be too exigent with the European institutions:
In the first article, I examine the historical roots of the European Union (EU): Europe was an ecology of competing, often warring jurisdictions that, after the Second World War, were integrated into the American Pax Democratica. Our generational challenge is to maintain the greatest American legacy: the EU.
https://www.frenchdispatch.eu/p/post-american-europe-historical-roots-eu-integration?r=biy76&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false
In the second article, the complex governance of the EU is characterised as a nomocracy, a harmonising and consociational confederacy which is less efficient but more robust than the other large international actors. Minimalistic institutional reform is proposed to strengthen European democracies in the age of populism.
https://www.frenchdispatch.eu/p/post-american-europe-eu-rule-based-democracy-authoritarianism?r=biy76&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false
The final instalment proposes policies to address technological dependency and the foreign policy stance of the post-American Europe: technological sovereignty, competition reform, and a renewed liberal order in Europe's near abroad:
https://www.frenchdispatch.eu/p/post-american-europe-eu-technological-sovereignty-liberal-order?r=biy76&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false
Great article as always Luis, though it left me with a question. Wouldn't you say that the Commission's competences are the main hinder to its ability to actually be a political actor at all?
Yes, direct election could help raise its political legitimacy, but a body that has to initiate legislation as well as make sure it is complied with seems like a recipe for disaster.
Like you said in the begining with the JCJ quote, the commission will always tend to treat countries differently depending on its dependency on that country to pass legislation in the Council.
I think that while the Commission holds these two powers it will never be able to be effective at both. We need a new independent body to be the holder of the treaties giving the commission more leeway to act politically and go against national interests in the name of the Union as is supposed to by their oath.