The European Parliament explained (Find our 2024 update in the description).
Vložit
- čas přidán 9. 06. 2024
- 2024 update: to get an up to date overview of the EP watch our updated 2024 version here:
• European Parliament ex...
This video is gives a short yet comprehensive introduction of the European Parliament. Among other things it covers the composition, powers and tasks of the European Parliament.
For more information on the EU and its institutions please subscribe to our channel.
In this series we explain complex aspects of the EU in a comprehensive and understandable way. If however, despite our diligence and help of Dr. Jan Oster, we have left something out or made a mistake, please be so kind to tell and forgive us.
Chapters
0:00 Introduction
1:52 Tasks & Powers
3:48 Decision making
4:42 Recap
Corrections:
From the 2019 elections onward the number of MEPs (reduction from 751 to 705) and distribution per country will be different due to the UK leaving. For the new distribution check www.europarl.europa.eu/resourc...
Sources:
Treaty on European Union and Treaty on the functioning of the EU: www.ecb.europa.eu/ecb/legal/p...
--------------------------------------------------
With Ciceroni we seek to be a guide to European culture and history. We make videos on little known subjects as well as more ubiquitous ones, ranging from current affairs like the European Union, to historic events like the Tulip Mania, and even mythological stories like those of the Greek Gods. In all these videos we strive to present the subjects in a objective manner and within their complex context.
Become a Patron: / ciceroni
Follow us on Twitter: / ciceroni_eu
Like us on Facebook: / ciceronichan. .
“Why is this done? Well, because France.” That sums up a lot.
Why??!? So impractical & costly to move all ur dpcuments every month.
@@oldengrimsey6785 French Beuracracy
France wants to have an important EU institution as well as one of the founding nations. Belgium has the comission and part of the parliament, Luxemburg has the Court and Germany has lost the war, wait, I mean they have the EZB.
Netherlands and Italy didn't really get anything either, though.
@@melonlord1414 Italy have pizza and pasta and that's it.
@@fromfareast3070 Italians are the winners here
"Because of France [full stop]." Best explanation for that I have ever heard!
Well if frexit happens goodbye EU so fuk off and get a brain. The European bank is in Frankfort. Frank=French currency before euros and fort=strong. Nothing is chosen randomly, they had to please the French or else nothing would have worked.
The words FRANKfurt and FRANce comes from the FRANKs , they are the origins of France and Germany.
That’s why in Germany and France we have words with “fran” inside, that’s all 😂
@@milancora4637 Frankfurt*
milan cora, Frankfurt is a German city like Straßburg was before it switch sides after the war.
Ta gueule !
I just clicked because there was well arranged circles
lucaslelego same XD
I think this would then be neat tools.wmflabs.org/parliamentdiagram/parlitest.php
Leaders of the Atlantido Globalist Organization Now !. Shame on you !. Your own God in Atlantis is ashamed of you! You Weren't Able To Compensate Me For The 20 Years Of The Holocaust, The Total Blockade To Which I Lungu Caius Octavian Is Subjected By Your Branch From: EU, ROU. CS Caransebes. Branch of Atlantido Globalist Organization which; a) He forbade me access to the most basic sources of economic income., B) He forbade me to have children (threatening, blackmailing any girl who talks to me). According to your EU Globalist Laws. I Lungu Caius Octavian I Paid even when I was not Guilty. And you Globalist Devils don't pay for the harshest Persecutions Your Branches do. - Devils Atlantis Globalists God feels ashamed of you. G: Führer der Atlantido Globalist Organization Now! Schäm dich !. Dein eigener Gott in Atlantis schämt sich für dich! Sie waren nicht in der Lage, mich für die 20 Jahre des Holocaust zu entschädigen. Die totale Blockade, der ich Lungu Caius Octavian ausgesetzt bin, unterliegt Ihrer Niederlassung von: EU, ROU. CS Caransebes. Zweig der Atlantido Globalist Organization, die; a) Er verbot mir den Zugang zu den grundlegendsten Quellen des wirtschaftlichen Einkommens. B) Er verbot mir, Kinder zu haben (jedes Mädchen, das mit mir spricht, zu bedrohen, zu erpressen). Gemäß Ihren EU Globalist Laws. Ich Lungu Caius Octavian Ich habe bezahlt, auch wenn ich nicht schuldig war. Und Sie Globalist Devils zahlen nicht für die härtesten Verfolgungen, die Ihre Zweige machen. - Devils Atlantis Globalists Gott schämt sich für Sie.
@@cultulenergiei9713 Be thankful that you are alive! Only if it was 1940...
🤠
The EU in a nutshell: "So far, this seems too straightforward. So, to make things unnecessarily complicated..." LOL
Very often this seems the case :) Complicated is what you get if 28 member states come to a compromise I guess.
Ciceroni Especially if one of those state is Italy.
We even have a joke about having an office for it, the office of complication of simple business.
Also our elections are formally held each 5 years but in reality they are held each 15+ because the governaments continuously collapse and are replaced with technical ones.
@@Ciceroni1 No it's what you get when your system is created and run by elite bureaucrats, sipping champagne each night. I think you'd be really surprised about what actually goes on there
In the US there's almost double as many states and nobody has any real problems understanding the system, because it's not overly complex. Plus it's actually democratic.
The EU parliament is not democratic at all because they're just the rubber stamp for the bureaucrats to give themselves legitimacy. Why didn't you mention that obvious fact?
@@marioluigi9599 sure... cause Americans don't actually care to learn a whole lot about their governments.
@@marioluigi9599 eu parliament itself is democratic, but the other institutions are not, and its hard for parliament to check them. like a 2/3 vote is needed to throw out the executive branch in EU, but in most parliamentary nations a simple majority will do
"The second largest democraric electorate, after India." This makes me wonder how India's different ethicities and religious groups don't constantly tear each other apart.
I am not entirely sure how well representation works in India but it is quite impressive that such a large population elects a common parliament.
Indian tradition of democracy is 5000 yrs old..........
@@beingdagur I meant ethnic tensions
@@beingdagur But somehow they still don't have much toilet...
@@sorkvild1473 democracy isn’t always great
2:30
*Slow Clap*
"Apples to oranges."
wel done mate.
"Well, because FRANCE"
Thanks for this, I’m from the US and I’ve always wanted to get to know the EU a bit more to better understand it.
Eu nato and west overall is pure hell on earth usa and british ++++
The democratic majority of the UK voted to leave, they decided on sovereignty, independence from a corrupt, anti democratic, unaccountable, protectionist, mafioso organisation run by a bunch of childish, vindictive, self serving, gravy train riding, free loading parasites.
@@marko9181 and yet they're currently the best places to live in with the highest standards of living
@@bryanfongo327 that dude probably uses a hole as a toilet lol
"Can we make everything in one country?"
EU: "No, that will be too simple and convenient.
i bet this channel had a surge of views right after brexit
Calin SA
Probably because the majority never has given a shit about trying to understand the EU machine.
Leonidas Tullius nobody wants to know how the European USSR works.
FinalLogicPro Proud to be stupid, are you?
Mr. Thong Song oh look, my Kryptonite - a self-proclaimed internet smarty pants. Boohoo 😂
HAHAHA
You don't have to be a smarty-pants just because you understand that striving for ignorance is bad. ;D
You're probably the easiest person one can manipulate. Politicians love you.
"Hey FinalLogicPro, why would you want to find out about my business ties? Do you really want to see some USSR documents?"
So you are dutch (you pronounced Maastricht right)
Well spotted :)
In case you didn't notice his accent :p
What is wrong with comparing apples and oranges?
Apples are hard, oranges are left hard.
Apples vary in a wide range of colors, where as oranges generally are orange or red.
Oranges are a citrus fruit where as apples are not.
Apples give me an allergic reaction, where as oranges doesnt.
Apples can grow in colder climates.
'Oranges' *shows the King and Queen of the Netherlands.*
Just as information, the orange in their name refer to the colour, as in Dutch it is 'Oranje'.
he0s Dutch, i might already know Buddy
İf Turkey joins after Germany Turkey will have most seats. Thats why Turkey can never join it.
And because it is very debateble if Turkey is in Europe and the Middle East. (and no one likes turkey cause it isn't very democratic)
no it doesn't. @Kjeld Schouten is right
turkey cannot join because of the human rights violations.
Yay I'm more represented than a German!
Stars Steven and Lars Da haben wir den Salat!
MBitzDE Schade Schokolade... da kann man aber wohl nichts dran ändern:(
But your nation has nothing to say because you have no majority. Even-though you have the ability to vote Democracy has been wisked away to the large European capitals.
itloads True can't lie about that, but it is a cool fun fact.
It's a cool fact that you have for-fitted your democratic right?
*"Because France"*
Leaders of the Atlantido Globalist Organization Now !. Shame on you !. Your own God in Atlantis is ashamed of you! You Weren't Able To Compensate Me For The 20 Years Of The Holocaust, The Total Blockade To Which I Lungu Caius Octavian Is Subjected By Your Branch From: EU, ROU. CS Caransebes. Branch of Atlantido Globalist Organization which; a) He forbade me access to the most basic sources of economic income., B) He forbade me to have children (threatening, blackmailing any girl who talks to me). According to your EU Globalist Laws. I Lungu Caius Octavian I Paid even when I was not Guilty. And you Globalist Devils don't pay for the harshest Persecutions Your Branches do. - Devils Atlantis Globalists God feels ashamed of you. G: Führer der Atlantido Globalist Organization Now! Schäm dich !. Dein eigener Gott in Atlantis schämt sich für dich! Sie waren nicht in der Lage, mich für die 20 Jahre des Holocaust zu entschädigen. Die totale Blockade, der ich Lungu Caius Octavian ausgesetzt bin, unterliegt Ihrer Niederlassung von: EU, ROU. CS Caransebes. Zweig der Atlantido Globalist Organization, die; a) Er verbot mir den Zugang zu den grundlegendsten Quellen des wirtschaftlichen Einkommens. B) Er verbot mir, Kinder zu haben (jedes Mädchen, das mit mir spricht, zu bedrohen, zu erpressen). Gemäß Ihren EU Globalist Laws. Ich Lungu Caius Octavian Ich habe bezahlt, auch wenn ich nicht schuldig war. Und Sie Globalist Devils zahlen nicht für die härtesten Verfolgungen, die Ihre Zweige machen. - Devils Atlantis Globalists Gott schämt sich für Sie.
You're Dutch, right?
GOD damn Store Patter i saw other stupid comments of you in this section, fock off, just because you write in capslock doesn't mean you are right!
Store Patter! No islam isnt a leftist religion.
To give a religion a political alignment is ridiculous due to the fact that in can be interpreted differently by people and cultures.
This guy pronounces Maastricht treaty very well
@Arcadium Then he speaks English very well, also this was an eternity ago
Please everybody vote in May!
And try to vote for people that actually have solutions for problems.
Exactly:)
Or don't.
@@deancena Why wouldn't you?
@@Ciceroni1 If your uninformed it would be reckless to vote, voting should be like driving everyone has a right to do it but some just shouldn't. Also if there is no suitable candidate voting, would just be incentivising mediocrity.
1. Party lists are on the ballot, not individual people;
2. If they had real solutions they wouldn't be interested in the EU.
It really bothers me how I cannot vote for EU parties directly, which means I’m stuck having to vote for tiny German parties that won’t get a seat anyway, just for the sake of technically having voted. Also, parliament being split between two cities really does seem like a mess. Wouldn’t it be nice if we could split parliament into two houses, one of which acts on behalf of the member states and is made up of national parties (bottom up), and the other houses unique EU parties, which act with a more federalist perspective. That way, we’d move another step closer to EU federalization, which I’d wager many people support.
There is in fact a European party that is trying to tackle this problem. Volt Europa participated in the last EP-elections in several countries with the same name and program. So that no matter whether you live in Germany, Holland or Italy you can all vote for the same party. Volt currently has one seat in the European Parliament.
The two houses similar to the US Senate and House sounds like a good idea. Where would you see the national leaders in this equation? Are they out of the picture? Is there yet another body like the current Council? Or are they the ones taking the 'Senate' seats?
... I dont want federalized EU , I voted 2003 yes to Poland join EU , but I did not voted that Poland would join EU that we have now ! , I want EU with open borders with free trade a "club" for independent countries , and honestly I dont give a damn what ever some Belgian , Dutch or German say us Poles to do , they have their own counties , they need to fuck off from Poland .😡
You mean like a House of Representatives and a house of senators? Hmmm, where have I heard that before?
@@cookiesupervisor2211 the EU has open borders and free trade but your government is a problem
We already have house of representatives (the parlement) and the senate (the council of the European union where each country is represented).
Those two body (the council of the UE and the parliament) are both co-legislators
Excellent! Such a very clear explanation! Thank you!
You are very welcome, glad you like it! :)
I miss traveling to Europe to see my Central/Southeastern European brothers 😢
Interesting fact Brussels /Luxembourgh / strasbourgh . are all cities of the old lotheringian empire. ( middle franconia)
The area that would later become the Netherlands . belgium luxembourg alsace and lorraine nations and regions that have been source of conflict for the past 1300 years.
90% of the comments didn't watch the video apparently.
I was in the Parliament complex in Strasbourg once (fun fact: The chamber of parliament is not actually in the huge tower, but in the ball poking out of the roof) as part of a youth program for pupils called PEL where you actually recreate and have a parliamentary session. You cast votes and so on.
Would be a cool topic for a video btw!
Anyways: The one thing I really think is weird is that if you vote per click of button, they later project an image on the main screen which percisely indicates which seat voted for what.
Unless I’m reading it wrong, on Title VII, Chapter 5 of the Rules of Procedure for the European Parliament, quorum is established as a third of the members, so it isn’t actually possible for 1 person to pass legislation, you’d need a sixth of the members at the very least.
(In reference to the bit at 4:18 )
You are right to point it out. The explanation here was merely to clearly point out the difference between simple and absolute majority voting. In hindsight I should have mentioned the quorum for clarity and also because actually it is an interesting complication, since when looking at the rules (the ones you mention), I'm not so sure that a quorum is indeed required.
The Rules and Procedures of the EP state that “Parliament may deliberate, settle its agenda and approve its minutes, irrespective of the number of Members present”, “All votes shall be valid whatever the number of Members voting unless the President, on a request made by at least 40 Members before voting began, establishes that a quorum is not present” and "If fewer than 40 Members are present, the President may rule that there is no quorum.".
So unless the president rules that there is no quorum, the vote would be valid, regardless of the number of MEPs present. In case there are only 40 MEPs present, they would first have to request the president to rule about the quorum. In case fewer MEPs are there, the president MAY rule that there is no quorum. So what if there is no request, or the president chooses not to rule about the quorum? Of course this is probably (and hopefully) never going to happen, the loophole itself is interesting and strange though.
Moreover, the quorum only says something about the number of MEPs present in the chamber ("A quorum shall exist when one third of the component Members of Parliament are present in the Chamber."). It says nothing about their (voting) behaviour. So in theory, and again this is unlikely to ever happen, couldn't a single voting MEP (with the rest of the quorum abstaining, sleeping or whatever) win a vote?
Would you mind posting your sources or the script itself? I would love to do a similar video for my channel
You're welcome to link to our video from your channel/video's ;) As for the sources, (most of) the information can be found on the websites of the EU institutions.
Simon let me know if you need any tips for going into middle school
Then you're not a liberal :)
Psaikodelik Good, Liberals are mindless sheep. At least I'm a sheep that's independent.
Liberal is not a political movement. Being Liberal is a way of life. It's tolerance and patience towards fellow humans. It means to respect the LGBT community, migrants, Muslims, Christians, Jews, people with disabilities, drug addicts. Liberal is an ettiquette, given to the people that live by the "Live and let live" way of life. People who are relatively individualistic, but friendly towards humans of different backgrounds, religions, sexual orientation, lifestyle etc. Sometimes Liberals pertain to one or more of these groups, that is why they have learned to respect other people. The opposite of Liberal is the racist, the xenophobe, the homophobe, the white dude who blames immigrants instead of blaming the damned politicians that have ruined our respective nations. Those that live in America and consider themselves liberal, are another breed, they might be sheep, stupid vegan elitists, hipsters, pseudo anarchists and what not. In Europe, we have a totally different outlook on politics and life. Hence in Europe we consider Anarchism, Liberalism, Democracy, Communism as ways of thinking, and not a political party that we follow blindly. Liberals in Europe don't vote, don't partake in politics, or vote for minor ideological parties that will never have a future like the Pirate Party, Green Parties etc.
Nice work man, this helps me a lot.
We are glad that you like it and that it helped :)
Funny how much the EUs current structure reminds me of Americas Articles of Confederacy (before the constitution). Also the representation of smaller states/nations compared to larger states/nations is similar to the issue in Americas electoral college. Malta is basically Europes Rhode Island and Germany is California.
The needs and wants of Malta are not the same as those in Germany ...
@@TheKosmicGladiator I'm just saying how similar the systems and the flaws in the system are.
@@lucazza3159 What flaws would you suggest exist?
@@TheKosmicGladiator misrepresentation across countries in the EU as people in larger countries have more representative power. And how states in the US with smaller populations have the same advanced representative power.
I really appreciate your attempt to pronounce all city names in their native language, thank you :)
I love this video! Listen to it everyday! It motivates me so much! thanks Ciceroni!
Haha thanks for this. You can also watch our other videos if you want more videos for your daily routine;)
UK forgets or doesn't know how much influence it had over decision making in the community of the EU28.
About to find it has much less influence post 2019...
....it's cold outside.....
You're right it is freezing but countries like Norway are kind of used to the cold.
So its possible to be a beacon of development and progress without the EU.
Omar Omokhodion So that's why they joined the EEA. Think about your statement for a moment....
They joined the EEA. Half way in from the cold.
So they have the benefits of EU with some level of control over fisheries. The disadvantage to having *just* EEA single market access? No voice at the top table.
Outside of customs union and single market access... no voice at ANY table.
Lol, it's funny how everyone points out Norway and Switzerland. Two very small countries sitting on global banking and oil. What about other non-EU countries like Moldova or Serbia?
You'll have to prove that the UK will lose those advantages before you can say its cold.
Omar Omokhodion As much as you need to prove the UK will keep those advantages once it's out in the cold.
The governments *own department* even stated we will lose billions after after single market access only deal.
Taking Norway's status is the worst of both worlds. We have to take EU rules, and we have no official voice to make or veto those rules.
In the EU, we make, veto and/or agree to rules. We already have trade deals with 56 countries - which we already have a voice in making. We have sovereignty - we can veto at any time - and we have: no EU superstate and no EU army. No to joining the Euro.
EASA civil aviation market? Britain has had a MASSIVE hand in developing that.. planes could be grounded! There has been no plan put forward.
Haulage firms limited to international permits which on themselves are restricted - non-EU trucks can't use EU roads without one. The Irish are drawing up diversion contingencies already, if this gets retaliated.
So yup... the UK has a lot to lose.
Thanks for this simple explanation.
I kind of wish you would make more of these videos. There is a significant deficit of videos explaining EU institutions on CZcams, imo.
How right you are! We’ll do our best to make some more. Thanks for the extra motivation :)
@@Ciceroni1 Well, if you do I'll be there to watch them. =p
It costs over £10 thousand to move the parliament around every time
Monarchist 18 that's so stupid just keep it in one place
Democracy amiright?
cameron burke
France is desperate to keep control over the EU. When the EEC was formed, they had almost complete power over the union. But since the reunification of Germany, they have been losing more and more power to Germany.
It must be a lot more that that. There is a fleet of lorries to move all the papers then you have accommodation and travel for everyone involved and the cost of having a second building that serves the same purpose as the one in Brussels 12 times per year.
It costs millions of dollars to move the president of the United States.
We should make the European Council directly electable, like the US did with the Senate in the early 20th century. It used to be that Senators were chosen by their states, just as the European Council today consists of the national heads of state
No we shoudnt and thats even true 3J in the future
I've seen what the "average citizen" votes for, it's not anything close to a guarantee of high quality results.
2:17 Who's that guy? Probably like the mayor of Würselen or something
*former mayor ;)
Tormageddon It's a joke, taking a jab at Martin Schulz, former President of the EU Parliament turned SPD chancellor candidate and SPD chairman. He did the very cowardly move of running as the "Mayor of Würselen", the only elected position on a non-EU level he ever held, instead of "the EU visionary who wants to democratize Europe and bring economic justice to Europe and Germany".
That is not only cowardly but also stupid, because his numbers tanked after it became clear that he WASN'T portraying himself as a visionary like that (temporarily, he was higher in the polls than Merkel). And he could have known that, because it was clear because of Macron in France that a pro-EU reform message can resonate.
www.wuerselen.de/wuerselen/cms/wuerselen/buergermeister.html
Tormageddon Except at times Red-Red-Green was polling at over 50%. He should have campaigned on economic justice like Bernie, giving people specific policies one after the other. Instead what he did was just say "economic justice" over and over again and hope people vote for him.
And he should have had a bold European message, using his only advantage he had over Merkel: His experience in the EU parliament. It's not like those people who wouldn't vote for him because he was a EU guy would somehow vote for him if he runs as the Mayor of Würselen, he won't make them forget that. But he could have inspired some people who wanted more justice in the EU
I wish this video spoke about the commission equally, its relationship to the parliament, and their relationship.
We also have a video explaining the Commission, its tasks, etc. Or were you looking for something else?
czcams.com/video/mE1rnOi8AFc/video.html
Great video! I can tell you were influenced by CGP grey, and my only criticism is that it is a little harder to follow than Grey; He explains everything from the very start, assuming we know nothing about the subject. Very entertaining and well produced, you've earned a subscriber!
Thanks for the great compliment! We try to explain it all as simple as possible without leaving anything out. Could you tell me where we didn’t explain it from the start? Might help us in the future:)
I find it interesting that MEP's in Parliament only get to approve or disapprove of (well, we in the USA call them "bills") and that the EC is the branch that PROPOSES. In the USA our Congress (Lower house = House of Representatives, Higher house = The Senate) gets to propose as well, but it has to go UP to the Senate for approval, the senate can rewrite it, edit it, or dismiss it altogether, then the House of Representatives have to start all over and put something together that the Senate will approve. So The EU Parliament is unicameral and not bicameral, which is fine, but I find that an interesting difference. What is shocking to me (as an American) is that MEPs don't have the right to PROPOSE as well as approve or disapprove. Sorry for the long windiness, I'm just trying to get a grasp of this, and yes, I'm here because BREXIT. :-)
For the record ... I disapprove of Trumpolini & I did not vote for that bastard.
The fact that the EP cannot propose bills is something that many people find weird. Mostly because national parliaments always have this power (although it is not used so much by them :P). I think the logic was to make it less political, the EC does what the political leadership of the member states wants and the EP is a check of the people. However, I would be in favour of adding the right of initiative to the EP :)
What kind of electoral system is used to elect these representatives?
A majoritarian/pluralitarian system?
A proportional system?
Something else?
Good question with a complicated answer ;) The only thing prescribed by the EU regarding the electoral system is that "the elections must be based on proportional representation and use either the list system or the single transferable vote system". Due to the different national systems, the EU electoral system differs among Member States.
We are working on a video explaining the EU elections, so more info in a video will follow soon ;)
Good, proportional representation is the best approach in my view although there's a lot of different ways to implement that.
Living in Norway I'm of course partial to our approach as it's quite good at ensuring that a large number of political parties gets *some* representation while it also gives parties with more then 4% of the votes a boost increasing their representation by a lot, enableing them to rule.
(A party can go from 1 or 2 representatives to 4-5 just by increasing the number of voters with 4-500 votes as any party with less then 4% of the votes gets representatives based on their local popularity in a particular election circle while any party with *more* then 4% of the national votes gets representation based on their popularity on a national level).
Our system also credits both land size and popularion size for representation and I *think* there's some mechanism to improve the value of votes in the large low population election circles far from the capital too, so people there are in essence worth more as voters while still within a proportional system (in essence covering one of the justifications that the Americans have for their electorial college system).
I was not at all familiar with the Norwegian system, but it does sound very interesting. Thanks for sharing! The Norwegian system would actually be a rather good video on its own!
+Ciceroni
Yes, it probably would be.
Especially because we at times have not just two, but three political blocks competing for power.
From 1997 to 2000 and from 2001 to 2005 the country was run by a minotiry coalition of small political parties in the political center and *not* the traditionally biggest political parties in the country on the left (the labour party) and right (the conservatives).
Essentially to win an election you just need enough votes for a cabinet proposal in the parliament.
And in theory the parliament can replace the cabinet at any time through a vote of no-confidence, something that does *not* trigger a new election, but rather requires a credible alternative to be presented.
As long as no better alternative is presented the old cabinet stays in power.
A vote of no confidence that cause the resignation of a single member of the cabinet or the whole cabinet to fall.
Also, parties can support a cabinet proposal without taking part in the cabinet themselves leading to situations where a minority coalition in cabinet is in power but might be forced to accept and implement a budget proposal made by the opposition.
Alliances are a bit fluent too with parties cooperating across the political spectre, for instance the socialist left party, a party left of the labour party has worked with the progress party (right of the conservatives) to implement some policies that the two parties share despite those two parties having wildly different world views.
Generally speaking a single axis political analysis isn't really all that good a fit for our political climate.
Our liberals and the progress party are both right wing, but on the opposite sides on so many other axies then the economical one.
+Ciceroni
www.regjeringen.no/en/topics/elections-and-democracy/den-norske-valgordningen/the-norwegian-electoral-system/id456636/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Webster/Sainte-Lagu%C3%AB_method#Modified_Sainte-Lagu%C3%AB_method
You say it's different to a national government, but it still has laws that effects people. So the democratic deficit is a major problem. The UN and NATO on the otherhand have no power to make laws.
NATO effectivly declares war and the UN much like the EU sets broad rules and mandates that members implementing in their legislation.
It's not a huge problem, because in the end the national governments people elected in their own country decide
It is not proportional, but semi-proportional.
The only way to make it completely proportional is to give every citizen 1 vote each.
My point is that he should just call it what it is. Semi-proportionality is not a problem, but you should strive for accuracy.
LOL, the background music...Ode to Joy-Joyful, we adore thee..:P
Ohh, so that's why there's the auditorium with the wood paneling style, and the one with the blue design - there's two different venues that they switch between, yes?
Exactly ;)
Citizens of smaller electoral areas are better represented than larger ones.
*ELECTORAL COLLEGE INTENSIFIES*
When you look at it per person, than in a way yes. In total the larger countries still have more MEPs though. It is hard to find a good balance I guess, what do you think about the current system?
@@Ciceroni1 it depends. If we conseder MEPs politicians it should be a proportional system (doesn't matter where you come from), but if we consider diplomats then the current system is good
@@obiwankenobi4252 While I agree, it is not that simple at the moment. With the current system of national parties running for elections and taking seat in the EP, national issues and interests are still a big part of the EP. If we would make a truly proportional system, the people from for example Malta, would have very little to say compared to Germans. Even now there is a lot more German MEPs than Maltese MEPs, but if we would make it truly proportionate the difference would be a lot bigger.
So yes, I would argue we should have a truly proportionate system, but in the current situation this is probably a good balance.
@@Ciceroni1 It would be better if each nation-state had an equal amount of seats, therefore, each member of the union would be treated equally. This would make the union more "European", instead of simply German, French, Spanish, and Italian. Since each European country has different values and traditions, this would help create legislation that equally takes into account all of these factors, equally.
Similarly to the UK where Scotland is overrepresented in the Commons
One man, one vote! But every European should be able of voting for any candidate no matter where he stems from in Europe!
Why?
@@putinsgaytwin4272 This way we would have a more democratic elected parliament. The European parliament would then resemble a national parliament. Right know it is still a construction from the early days of Europe where national vanities and peculiarities stood in the way of crafting a real parliament. I think it is time the EU makes a transition towards the supernational state. Having a parliament where every candidate can be elected from everyone is a step in that direction.
GeilerRitter I have 2 reasons as to why I disagree with that.
1. It becomes wayyyyy too difficult to study the thousands of nominees that run for a seat in the EU. How are you supposed to make an educated choice? How is the average person who doesn’t rly care about politics going choose the best person? They’re probably just going to choose the most well known candidate who may be famous for the wrong reasons. It’s much easier to study between the 3-4 candidates in your area that generally have the same political mindset as you and your areas best interests at heart.
2. Some countries with very small populations e.g. Estonia with 1.3m sometimes may not even have a representative. How would you feel if you were paying a large amount of money into the EU but didn’t even have a representative from your country? This would probably cause a couple of exits
@@putinsgaytwin4272 Well your first point isn't a valid one. The size of the parliament can be fitted to the purpose. And just because there is a large number of representatives doesn't mean you cannot come up with a satisfying way of building a functioning parliament. By the same argument of yours Germany as well shouldn't be able to have a parliament then.
My point remains actually the same for your second argument. The several federal states of Germany send representatives to another chamber than the parliament. The parliament is being filed up by members of the voted party. If your Estonian politician is a good one, he or she will find his/her way within the party to get a seat. If not, he can run for office of the representative for the second chamber.
Overall I am talking huge changes of the political system.
GeilerRitter maybe I don’t fully understand your points as my English skills aren’t great.
However, Germany does have a large number of representatives, but aren’t people only able to vote for candidates in their own constituencies? It’s much easier to study the people from your constituency than to study all 2000+ candidates across the country. The average voter is not going to study every candidate and some may feel overwhelmed and avoid voting. If they do vote they’ll only vote for candidates they have heard about, that are on the news regularly.
There probably are ways of making it satisfactory but voting for members from your own country is the most satisfactory way for me personally.
There is no such thing as an objectively good candidate. Good is a subjective word. If Estonians were authoritarian communists, the best candidate for them would be an authoritarian communist. Many countries wouldn’t agree with their policies and might leave Estonia with no candidate to represent them. If you want to vote across all counties, you must make sure that every country can be represented. I don’t know how that can be guaranteed if you allow countries to vote for other countries.
Germany has a good system for its own country. Europe contains so many diverse cultures, languages and diverse opinions, that I just think some people will be vastly under represented. When you have smaller countries, the leaders more accurately represent the opinions of the country.
0:22 looks like the blast radius of a high-explosive device.
Not that I'm trying to give anyone any ideas, obviously.
Is there some sort of graphic that shows the actual current formation of the member states in the political parties of the Eu as you can see the example in 0:57 ? :)
Wikipedia tends to do a great job in showing the division. They have information on party per country etc. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_European_Parliament_election
Good vid! One thing though: a simple majority requires at least 126 votes in favour. There need to be 250 MEPs present for the vote to be considered good.
What you're addressing is the quorum and you are right to point it out. The explanation here was merely to clearly point out the difference between simple and absolute majority voting. In hindsight I should have mentioned the quorum for clarity and also because actually it is an interesting complication, since when looking at the rules, I'm not so sure that a quorum is indeed required.
The Rules and Procedures of the EP state that “Parliament may deliberate, settle its agenda and approve its minutes, irrespective of the number of Members present”, “All votes shall be valid whatever the number of Members voting unless the President, on a request made by at least 40 Members before voting began, establishes that a quorum is not present” and "If fewer than 40 Members are present, the President may rule that there is no quorum.".
So unless the president rules that there is no quorum, the vote would be valid, regardless of the number of MEPs present. In case there are only 40 MEPs present, they would first have to request the president to rule about the quorum. In case fewer MEPs are there, the president MAY rule that there is no quorum. So what if there is no request, or the president chooses not to rule about the quorum? Of course this is probably (and hopefully) never going to happen, the loophole itself is interesting and strange though.
Moreover, the quorum only says something about the number of MEPs present in the chamber ("A quorum shall exist when one third of the component Members of Parliament are present in the Chamber."). It says nothing about their (voting) behaviour. So in theory, and again this is unlikely to ever happen, couldn't a single voting MEP (with the rest of the quorum abstaining, sleeping or whatever) win a vote?
Ciceroni Interesting! This is way more in depth than I've gone, so this is lots of new information for me too. Thanks for the explanation and clarification!
I'm gonna do the MEP this year but I only know about 30% of how the EU works lmao
"Why? Because France!" LOL 😂
And this right ^^ (i am french)
Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg, Germany, and Italy have want a part of the UE at the start, so Italy and netherlands have got a treaty, others have got a institution in one of their cities
What you say makes no sense, execpy if you are peruvian and if it's the case, you are just immature
Matisz253 what about their football team ? ;)
BECAUSE FRANCE
Imagine a smaller nation getting more representation...
(Laughs in American)
Heheh, gotta give those marginalised farmers some 'democracy'
Imagine having degrees in "GENDER STUDIES", or 48 genders.
Laughs in european.
@@blaster5800 They'll import the genders pretty soon. It takes time to load them all on a boat..
@@blaster5800 What?
Liked for the "comparing apples with oranges" joke
Very interesting - brilliant explanation of the European Parliament!
2:19 - Europarl _does_ have a say in every piece of legislation passed at a Union level. The items listed here do not require legislation, and rather are separate legal acts, as per Articles 31, 207(3), 106(3) and 45(3)(d) TFEU.
Thanks for this :) To clarify, why don't they require legislation? What type of separate legal acts are we talking here?
@@Ciceroni1 As with everything in multinational organisations, it's all complicated :p
With regard to the common external tariff and common commercial policy, the Commission proposes to the Council common external tariff change and trade agreements with third countries, which the Council then approves. The power over specifics of trade policy in the EU, as with most entities, lies with the executive branch; however, in virtually any case in which there's a significant change, the European Parliament is required to vote on it as well. For instance, take the example of the recent trade agreement with Japan - Europarl was required to vote on that, by virtue of Article 218(6)(a) of the TFEU, which states that (to summarise) if any significant budgetary responsibility, institutional changes or legislation is required, Parliament must consent. In fact, even if none of these things apply at all, the European Parliament must be _consulted_ - which, whilst it isn't a requirement for approval per se, is a stronger safeguard of parliamentary sovereignty in the EU than most individual Member States have vis-á-vis trade agreements (see Article 218(6)(b)).
In respect of monopolies and concessions, whilst Europarl doesn't have involvement here, it's not accurate to say that this process is legislative, as the Commission acting alone can't introduce new limitations or restrictions. Under Article 106(3) of TFEU, the Commission alone can address Directives or Decisions to Member States for the purposes of monopoly control - or the "operation of services of general economic interest" - where provisions are already made in the Treaties to do so. In effect, in this regard, the Commission acts more as a regulator than a legislative body - the rules it has to apply are already set down in the Treaties, especially TFEU articles 18 and 101-109; it merely enforces them, and has the appropriate power to compel Member States to do so. They already signed up to these rules by democratically adopting the Treaties. (Incidentally, to the best of my knowledge, these powers have only ever been used twice!)
The rights of workers to remain in a Member State after losing their employment there is the only really contentious one on this list, and I'll be honest with you - I don't really know enough to explain why it's there. TFEU article 45(3)(d) says that if you lose your employment in a Member State, you can remain in that Member State "subject to conditions which shall be embodied in regulations to be drawn up by the Commission". Why this is there, I don't quite understand - the best guess I could make would be to prevent the meaning of freedom of movement being fundamentally changed by a contentious act of Parliament - but to the best of my knowledge, this has never actually been employed either. It's also worth noting that there is precedent for Europarl taking control of freedom of movement in reality - regulation 492/2011 is a good example of this - and also that the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights declares in Article 45(1) that "Every citizen of the Union has the right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States", which would make it very difficult for the Commission to place any real restrictions on remaining after losing employment. So as usual, there's a load of asterisks after it :)
Usual set of disclaimers to anyone who comes across this: I'm not a lawyer, and you shouldn't consider this legal advice. If you actually need interpretation of any of these parts of the Treaties, you should consult a qualified legal practitioner in your Member State.
MEPs group themselves in larger political PARTIES or political GROUPS?
MEPs are generally member of a (national) political party, at the same time they are part of a larger EP Group (or are registered as 'Non-attached') in which MEPs and parties with similar political views are grouped together. You can find the groups and details on their members here: www.itsyourparliament.eu/groups/
thank you!
Well that was good! I've been watching countless videos about Brexit and the EU but nothing so comprehensive and understandable as this. Well done. Only thing ... you copped out about France!
Thanks a lot :) And about the France thing, we wanted to mention it but didn't have the time to go into detail. So we felt a joke could help lighten the complex situation :)
I'm from Ireland but I live in The Highnesslandia (Netherlands)
And I from Oldnessland (Spain)
I'm just here for that wondrous Under Pressure reference
"A single vote can change anything" it's basicakly how it works in most places for most laws.
This is star wars senate on serious steroids
The E.U. parliament seems similar to Congress in the U.S.
Pretty much, its a parliament for a large union of states so it will be similar to a congress for a federation of states
that was some nice Queen reference
Excellent video, wich makes the obvious mistake you made at 4:18 even more odd. Did you seriously think that there are no requirements for a quorum??? At least 1/3 of members must be present in order to pass a vote
Thanks :) About the quorum, you are the second person to point this out. The explanation was merely to clearly point out the difference between simple and absolute majority voting. In hindsight I should have mentioned the quorum for clarity and also because actually it is an interesting complication, since when looking at the rules, I'm not so sure that a quorum is indeed required.
The Rules and Procedures of the EP state that “Parliament may deliberate, settle its agenda and approve its minutes, irrespective of the number of Members present”, “All votes shall be valid whatever the number of Members voting unless the President, on a request made by at least 40 Members before voting began, establishes that a quorum is not present” and "If fewer than 40 Members are present, the President may rule that there is no quorum.".
So unless the president rules that there is no quorum, the vote would be valid, regardless of the number of MEPs present. In case there are only 40 MEPs present, they would first have to request the president to rule about the quorum. In case fewer MEPs are there, the president MAY rule that there is no quorum. So what if there is no request, or the president chooses not to rule about the quorum? Of course this is probably (and hopefully) never going to happen, the loophole itself is interesting and strange though.
Moreover, the quorum only says something about the number of MEPs present in the chamber ("A quorum shall exist when one third of the component Members of Parliament are present in the Chamber."). It says nothing about their (voting) behaviour. So in theory, and again this is unlikely to ever happen, couldn't a single voting MEP (with the rest of the quorum abstaining, sleeping or whatever) win a vote?
How is the President of the European Parliament elected? Are they first nominated by one of the other EU institutions and then approved or rejected by European Parliamentarians subsequent to an 'absolute majority' vote being held in the European Parliament? If so, which institution has the power of nomination? Thank you.
The president is elected by the MEPs directly. The other institutions are not involved (i.e. no nomination required for a candidate).
Thank you very much for your response. So, are there numerous candidates (for the European parliament Presidency) for MEPs to choose from on the ballot paper? How does the parliamentary electoral process work? Thank you, I've just subbed.
In theory every MEP can run for president, so the number of candidates can vary. However since 1994 the president is usually a candidate from the largest two parties (European People's Party and the Party of European Socialists) who ‘share’ the presidency between them, supporting one and other in elections.
In the elections all MEPs cast a vote (by secret ballot) for their preferred candidate, who must have an absolute majority to win the vote. Because of the requirement of an absolute majority, multiple rounds can be held. If after three rounds no candidate had an absolute majority, a fourth round is held with only the two leading candidates (the ones with the most votes in the previous round). In the unlikely case of a tie, the oldest candidate becomes president (simple but effective I guess).
I hope this answeres your question ;)
That's a very satisfactory response, thank you very much.
I feel like it should be highlighted that the "President of the European Parliament" can be a little misleading as a title. The role is much closer to being the "speaker"
The African Union, a trade union like Europe has almost three times as many people and a huge combined economy, even if it's per capita income is extremely low.
There are indeed several regions that have taken a page from the book of the EU to create unions that could bring great advances in peace and prosperity in the region. The African Union is a great example of this.
If the effect of such a union can prevent war in Africa as it did in Europe, the world would certainly be a better place for it.
Additionally, the collective bargaining power of the 55 African nations should benefit the global geopolitical position of the African peoples greatly.
Lifting millions of people out of poverty and bringing peace to a continent are big ambitions, let's hope the African Union can make it happen! (and learn from some of the mistakes the EU made too)
@@Ciceroni1 If they could typically organize voting blocs to do the same with a commonly aligned foreign policy, it would be an excellent way to stand up to the authoritarian government of Xi Jinping, and the remaining colonial problems, debt, and other problems with negotiating with Canada and the US along with Europe and abusive monarchies in the Arabian peninsula. They would have a huge voting bloc that would nearly be enough to veto any UNSC nomination, needing just 10 more countries do so so alongside themselves, and while the UNSC has a veto from each of the P5, to do any action they also need 9 of the 15 members to support doing an action including supporting a nominee for Secretary General. They would get a big bloc on the varying councils like human rights and economic action, and on parallel organizations like the WHO, Interpol, and the ICJ assemblies they would have a big bloc there too.
Do you know who your representative MEP is and when you voted for them?
Only a few countries, like the UK, use(d) constituencies for the EU elections. In those countries you would have a MEP as your representative. In the other countries they you would not necessarily have 1 MEP, but rather all the MEPs of the party you voted for.
But, I am pretty sure most people don't know who they voted into European Parliament...
love that flula reference, at a boy ! thx ;D
So eloquently explained yet judging from this comment section, Eurosceptic still can't seem to grasp the concept. What a shame.
Why is UK still here?
We want to leave but seem to be stuck...
FreeStyle they have voted to leave but the process is gonna take another year or two until everything has been figured out
Toby Williams,
you are gonna leave, don't you worry about that friend ;)
cerealcreeper sdfds I wish we'd hurry up about it. RULE BRITANNIA #moggmentum
Nunca se irán
1:47 well... that explains everything
very great describing.
When I saw the joke of the oranges I suddenly listend closely and I think your Dutch! But with a really good fake British accent! hahaha
Good guess ;)
I learnt in school, that the majority of votes is not enough, you also need the majority of countries to pass anything.
True, for new EU laws to pass a majority of Member States must also agree. This is done through voting in the Council and by giving national parliaments the option to object. Watch our video on the Council and the legislative process for more information.
czcams.com/video/-jZu0lUUAeM/video.html
czcams.com/video/8C0Kq7ioOpk/video.html
Ciceroni Thank you, I will check it out.
Excellent video
Thank you, neither from "LIVE European Parliament holds plenary session on Catalonia at 4th of October in 2017 by Ruptly TV (IF IT IS TREATED FROM AND FOR PERSONS) nor coming from indirect functions by the times on 10' from vital inviable parameters to complete conversations on defined goals independently. So, put actions on it respecting manners to be, thinking and act cohesively ;-) CSr.P
_This comment has been censored due to European Unions copyright law._
Haha nice one :)
Yeah, that's not how it works. Remember when activism had brains?
4:39 That can't be right. If everyone is voting thatd mean that 50%+66,6% = 116.6% would need to vote in favor. And, as we all know, that's only possible in Russia
Haha, nicely found. Obviously it is not 2/3rd on top of an absolute majority, but rather a 2/3rd majority :)
A point of correction: even if there is a building for the assembly in Bruxelle, the seat of the european parlement is in Strasbourg, France
Yes the official and legal seat of the EP is in Strasbourg, however the majority of work is done in Brussels nowadays....
@@Ciceroni1 that's because of Juncker who doesn't want to move his lazy ass to Strasbourg.
I'm pretty sure it is not. Juncker is is the president of the Commission which has its seat in Brussels, so would be weird if he would be in Strasbourg all the time ;)
God how happy I am that after almost 3000 years of Europeans fighting against eachother we all just said fuck it and worked together, and doing a pretty solid job at that
Right?!
It says a lot that most of the clueless comments on this video seem to come from Americans.
In all fairness, why should we memorize the democratic process of a country or coalition that we dont belong to unless we plan on residing or moving there?
says the username of jumbles.
@@pineapple2373 They probably don't, but won't deny it since they think they are intellectually superior. xD
@@asdsdjfasdjxajiosdqw8791 Do we pretend to know Europe? I haven't noticed
Pineapple mostly they give and receive bribes, I would guess
I hope the parliament will have more power in the future and thus give the citizens more to say - make the eu more democratic :D
We couldn’t agree more. The parliament as the democratic body of the European project should be more powerful so the people of Europe have control over our laws.
A stinger Parliament does not mean less power to the nations. It means less power to the democratically deficient European Commission and Council and more to the European voters.
fun fact, the parliament listens more to larger countries (germany, france etc) or countires that have been in eu the longest.
Interesting. In what way does it listen to it more?
@@Ciceroni1 from what I know, they value their opinions more than for example Estonian's, who joined the EU in 2001
Well made! Subscribed for more. In varietate concordia!
My favourite bit is when they all move to Strasbourg for a week. So glad my taxes are being spent well.
Yeah not the most efficient use of time and money;) but luckily these things are the exception and by far most of the money does go to useful things:)
I bet you blame Europe for that and not France?
"A poza tym sądze że Unia europejska powinna być zniszczona " - Janusz Korwin Mikke
"Finnaly I think that European Union schould be destroyed " - Janusz Korwin Mikke
I respectfully disagree. Destruction without offering alternatives rarely leads to improvement. So in that light, what alternative solutions to the problems of our time does Korwin-Mikke or you offer?:)
@@Ciceroni1 The EU must be dismanteled if Europe is to survive.
Alternetivly you could leave sovereign states to be sovereign states, or create a Europian Federation by europaisn for europians.
The birocratic foreign run nightmare that is the EU must burn.
@@baltulielkungsgunarsmiezis9714 "The EU must be dismanteled if Europe is to survive."
That is complete bullshit.
"Alternetivly you could leave sovereign states to be sovereign states, or create a Europian Federation by europaisn for europians. "
Every country in the EU is a sovereign state. And the EU consists of people elected by Europeans for Europeans.
"The birocratic foreign run nightmare that is the EU must burn."
You can barely write a sentence. Maybe fix that first before you start rambling on about burning things you clearly do not understand.
@@Ciceroni1 None, Janusz Korwin Mikke is an idiot.
@@vayate1234 "Every country in the EU is a sovereign state." Really? So why did the EU go after Poland for defending its borders and outlawing abortion without justification. It does appear they dont want sovereign states but rather puppet states.
"And the EU consists of people elected by Europeans for Europeans." Ursula the woman who was Germanys minister of defence having never served in the army and saying IFW are work places for pregnant woman, the same one whos unckle as governmenor of a german state threatened to take away funding from a university if they dont drop the plagerism against poor Ursula who knew no better, the same woman married to an american capitalist decended of southern slave owners, is the face of the EU. And do tell when I voted for her, or for anyone in the commission or any judge for that matter. I have never voted for any of them. They could at the very least be honest about being of the western oligrachy for the western oligarchy.
2:35 no, we ARE talking about a state government
Why would you say that?
this is a future CGP Grey
That is a great compliment Robin! Thanks :)
Appreciating for the Protection of Human Rights in the world.
The European Parliament does not have the power to amend legislative proposals.
For more information on the legislative process, check out this video: czcams.com/video/8C0Kq7ioOpk/video.html
As far as I know, the parliament can suggest amendments but cant actually get them into the law without the help of the EU commission. Which is stupid because it gives the executive branch of the government too much power over the legislative branch.
rom mlol the same branch that can fire them if they dont do there job.
"but cant actually get them into the law without the help of the EU commission"
That's true. In EU you need all three bodies to pass the laws.
"Which is stupid because it gives the executive branch of the government too much power over the legislative branch"
It's not stupid, it simply makes Commission powerful, which I find better than having a weak government. Also in countries you can't really pass laws without gov. either, they can veto laws, unlike Commission.
Did you misspell "resources" (recourses 3:08)
Huh, we did indeed. How strange... Thanks for pointing it out though :)
3:40
I would think it would need to get more powerful like for example being able to fire individual ministers. Also we need to impliment a system of ranked choice voting to make sure the EU represents the people more accurately.
We agree! We are working on a video to highlight how we think the EU can be improved to make it a true European democracy. So keep an eye out and let us know what you think when you've watched it :)
“Uk” so this is outdated
Specifically the United
We’re working on an updated version;)
@@Ciceroni1 👀
Who are watching this in 2019?
Please help me for due PhD research study from TU.
Stable video 👍
Supranationalism has led Europe to peace and cooperation between great national powers! May Europe and it's union of nations stay strong!
What a dreamer xD We only have peace because of nuclear bombs...
You mean corporations, not cooperation. Yes, the EU has done very well in enslaving the European countries to multi-billionaire companies.
Innocent Ferret You should stop listening to American (influenced) media. It's bad for your education. Is the EU perfect? No. It's incredibly flawed. But it at least grants it's citizens proper protections against corporations, is more democratic than the political system in countries like the US has ever been and increases the ability of any member country to deal with emergencies (even if not to an acceptable degree). The EU won't become perfect anywhere within the next several generations. But it is progress over having a continent full of countries that ignore or try to conquer their neighbours. And it is also progress over the lack of democracy in big parts of Asia and the corrupt system in the US.
Huschibaba Trump is our first Orange President you racist.
It's collapsing.
council of Europe is also directed elected
I assume you meant the European Council. In which case you are partially right, as it depends on the country. France for example directly elects its president, who sits on the European Council. Other countries don’t directly elect their head of government (In The Netherlands for example the Lower House is directly elected, after which a prime minister is appointed by the King). So not all members of the European Council are directly elected but they all do have democratic mandates.
If you did mean the Council of Europe (not part of the EU), you are also partially right. The parliamentary assembly consists of members of national parliaments, who are directly elected. The other statuary body however, is not directly elected, as it consists of ministers of foreign affairs.
yes, my bad, i meant European council and i wanted to say directly and not derected.
the member of each national government in the European council ARE indeed elected, mark rutte was elected. i understand what you are saying, but its a technicality (though extremely important), if by habit, a dutch party would say who will be the prime minister AFTER they win the elections you could say that, but the prime minister candidate is 'shown' before hand.
infact taking those technicalities in consideration, then you can say there are not many direct elections in the World
Yes true, Mark Rutte was elected and yes it is a technicality, but (apart from being of consequence in negotiating powers of the differents head of state/government) such technicalities are what makes it interesting and complicated, don't you agree? :)
Also in this technicality, consider that the VVD as a party, not Rutte personally, only received about 21% of the votes, while Macron, as a person running for president, received 66% in the final round. Each system has its benefits, but one could argue that the French president has a ‘more direct’ mandate than the Dutch Prime Minister.
true, as the saying goes, the devil is in the details right?
weren t many in EU pushing so that we can also elect the EU commissioner?
btw, can i recommend that you join the European Union citizen community on goggle+?
That sounds familiair. There are often attempts to make key positions in the EU directly elected. Who knows, it might happen some day :)
Yeah, sounds good. Which one exactly? :)
हजुरहरू सबैलाई हार्दिक सम्झना छ।
the grain in the field grows spoiled No matter the grain side of the field growth still
The whole interpretation of the whole world is short interpretation