Laws are passed undemocraticly that's the purpose of the corrupt unelected parasitic eu government great at forcing unpopular undemocratic laws on member states populations with the blessing of corrupt member state governments lol what a scam
Thanks im studying for an EU test and have ADD and dyslexia which makes it hard to just sit down and read books so when there are informative videos that can help a lot. thanks
Needed a recap on the EU and this was perfect. Maybe you could do something similar but with the UN instead after this series is done. Thank you for the informative video and you have gotten yourself a new subscriber.
Idiot lol! The corrupt unelected parasitic eu government is brilliant at forcing unpopular undemocratic laws on member state populations lol that is why it was created to side step democracy
Reading comments below gave me all sorts of illnesses... How come this is not democratic? Remember, council members and parliament MEPs come from your own countries, with the parliament members VOTED BY YOU. It is a form of indirect democracy, albeit with less democracy than in nation scale. The complicated process ensure that new laws are benefiting the majority AND not having severe negative effects on any particular member. As someone who lives in a country with rampant corruption and inept politicians, EU is a vastly superior system. Do not drown in the word democracy.
They came here to criticise EU and not to find truth. They often don't know how their countries work, much less to know how EU works. Many of those critics also think direct democracy is best democracy, which is assumption for which there's no proof, especially in todays complex world when opinion of public can be very different from real world.
Commission is indirectly elected, just like all other governments in Europe or the World. E.g. Swiss government is very close in functioning to the EU Commission, main difference is that all states are represented in the Union and only some cantons are represented in the Switzerland, otherwise it's identical (Btw, this is what rejected EU Constitution wanted for EU too). *Directly elected government does not exist,* however some members are directly elected in semi-presidential and presidential systems, usually the head of government or state, e.g. Macron. EU is using parliamentarian system, meaning Commission is not seperate power body, but it's a body accountable to Parliament. Indirect election means you cannot vote for a person directly. Instead you vote for a party and if party wins then their candidate will take seat as long as they have 50% of votes or more, if not, they need to form a coalition, where usually the strongest party's candidate becomes the PM, e.g. Mrs May in the UK and coalitions in Continental Europe.
The meme of the undemocratic European Union is spreading but, man, i dont see the undemocraticness... The Council, is elected by the elected goverments of each country, then, they propose something, and the european comission, who only have the right to say no with reasons, draft the law asking everybody arround (also, elected by the parliament and the council, so, indirect democracy again) and then, the parliament, elected by the population of each country, can say yes, or no. Then, more safeguards to avoid conflicts, each national parliament can say no to stop new laws... Bureocratic, heavy and slow, but looks to me very democratic and efficient to avoid unnecesary problems...
Thanks for making this video dude, just started my EU law course at uni like 2 weeks ago and I have been looking for videos about it to at least make studying it less boring than just reading stuff on kortext
The EU construction is indeed complicated but in essence it does pretend to bring justice and democracy for its people. However I am highly eurocritical, because there are two big problems: 1 - the EU is overly burocratic. In great part this is because most of the people, representatives and politicians still think way TOO NATIONALISTIC instead of in a collective European sense. So all the nitti-witty exceptions of each country have to be taken in account for every nitty-witty decision. When you have lived in three different European countries like me and actually do not suffer any nationalistic preference anymore (yes, I consider it a disease) , you see and understand that all that nationalistic nitty-wittying is shortsighted and stupid, and not only reduces overall benefit, but in the end also your own little nationalistic benefit. but much worse is 2 - Corruption! Although in politically correct terms "they" call it 'lobbying'. Here is where the politically and socially good intentions of the EU institutions are completely bought away by big business, industry and, of course, banks. Here is where the 'market' becomes more important than people. Here is where austerity on all European citizens has to finance basically German and French banks that should have gone default. Here is where oil industry smashes CO2 reduction and other green goals. Here is where TTIP and Monsanto (now Bayer) have tried to impose their own laws. Here is where farmaceutical industry is able to impose vaccination obligations for whole countries. Here is where the Netherlands and Luxemburg can maintain their top positions as Tax Havens (Juncker becoming EU president after having 'improved' Luxemburgs position as tax haven) Here is where arms industrie supports Unitedstatian wars in arab countries causing the immigration 'problem', which in fact is not a problem but a symptom. (everybody should stop using the name of the continent for those people) It's all about money and power. If lobbying didn't happen, then Europa could truly be that Community the European citizens dream of. The existing EU is not a "Union" for the people, it is only for big business, banks and buyable politicians. It doesn't have anything to do with the original European Dream. Solution? Instead of cowardly running away from this high level maffia, like some countries pretend, we, the people have to go in there and CHANGE it! Politicians make people believe that as a country alone they stand stronger against the power of big business. Yeah.... sure! This is either a biiiiig mistake or a biiiiiig lie. If you are eurocritic with some sense, you don't "just forget about it", you go and SOLVE it. At least you try! I am not here to make political propaganda so no names or references, but anyone who is seriously interested in making a better Europa instead of having it fall apart look around and investigate, there are good options and you still have time to find a good choice for the EU elections in may 2019!
1. Agreed ;) 2. True, however this is not only a European problem, but a problem faced by all levels of government. Out of interest, according to you, is there a political party running for elections next year that offers a solution to the problems you point out?
Now that you ask for it I dare to name DiEM25 specifically, led by Yanis Varoufakis, I guess you must have heard of them (www.DiEM25.org) You can also check some selected short videoclips (I'd recommend specially the one on the EuroGroup) on www.vimeo.com/EurOpinion (not just DiEM/Varoufakis). Actually I'm not too much into politics, in fact DiEM25 (Democracy in Europe Movement 2025) began as a movement, to only later add a political wing. There is quite some internal and external fuzz going on about a lot of details about their program and even internal way of functioning, but for me the only thing that counts is the essence: maintain (of course) a united Europa, but go in there and CHANGE IT! Yanis calls it "Democratize" Europa. They (we) will be presenting as the only fully pan-European party for the elections. Besides DiEM25 there are a lot of smaller national parties (and then grouped together on EU level) who want the same thing, mostly green and left-wing parties. Center and right-wing parties in favour of keeping Europa together only want so to maintain the status quo, and that is exactly NOT what we (I) want. They are the ones that make people want to leave. Indeed the buyability of politicians by big business and banks is not just a European problem but a global disease (called neo-liberalism). My personal conviction is that if we don't break this soon, we (the whole world except the 1%) are in for a very dark and harsh future, and I don't think we'd reach the next century with a healthy global society or planet. And, frankly, IMHO only a changed, strong, united Europe can break this. We are the only ones who have the combined resources of money and know-how on one hand, plus at least a certain will, willingness and mindset amongst its population to make this change (forget about this amongst Unitedstatians, Russians or Chinese). Thank you for your question ;)
DIEM25 indeed is an interesting European alternative, Volt Europa is another. If you don't know it, could be interesting to check out. It will be very interesting to see how the 'European parties' will fare in the elections and afterwards in the EP. Let's hope the future is not so very dark and harsh :)
I agree the EU must start talking more closely to the citizens. Now everything seems so far away from everyone, while they are very important actually.
Lobbying isn't necessarily a bad thing. The problem is when there's no rules to abide by when it's occurring. Sure, if you look at the US, since they have no rules, it's basically legalized bribery.
a GREAT and simple video about something really complicated and by reading ununderstandable. This is a precious gem and I think the EU should make a law that every EU citizen becoming an adult should once see it! ;)
Names of the people who make the laws (accountability) and how does the EU electorate democratically get rid of these people they don't like (democracy)?
The laws that have already been passed must first be enforced before new laws can be enacted. The fundamental right to privacy. Most citizens do not even have privacy in their own homes This leads to states of exhaustion and not infrequently to sleeping pills and alcohol abuse. Apartments without Soundproof also endanger democracy. "Without privacy there is no democracy"
The democratic deficit exists by extension. At the UK domestic level it's (in no order) citizen, MP, Parliament, Lords + Government. There's the deep well of civil servants too. Adding the EU level, including the UK process (in no order) we have citizen, MP, Parliament, Lords + Government, MEP, EU Parliament, Council of Ministers, Commission, EU Council and the secretariat working behind the scenes. That's further extending the connection we have between public and policy making and the idea that such mechanisms can accurately represent 500m people is a little far-fetched. I've seen some people mention that the EU process is a protective and thoroughly preferable system to one of more direct democratic leanings. In all but saying so, they're admitting that they're happy for state mechanisms to do their thinking for them, and that the people around them shouldn't be trusted to hold an opinion. A bizarrely arrogant statement. If the EU system is what you like, then sure, enjoy. But there's nothing wrong with wanting to unhook yourselves from this somewhat esoteric system of inter-connected bodies either.
How can you find out where in this process a specific proposal is? For example the European Commission proposed changes to updated requirements for driving licences and better cross-border enforcement of road traffic rules (press release 01/03/2023 IP_23_1145). I'd like to follow this in some way as it goes through the European Parliment and European Council. How do I do that?
You should be able to find info on the website of the Commission. It says the next step is that it will now be considered by the European Parliament and the Council under the ordinary legislative procedure. You might find details on those discussion in meeting notes and agenda's. See here: ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_23_1145
2:37 So can Parliament reject it immediately, or does it have to wait until the end? And also, what are the simplifications? And can the institutions at 1:36 and the citizens' initiative bypass the Commission? Thanks in anticipation for the answer.
-It does not have to wait until the end to reject. From the start it can accept, reject or amend. Just in the last reading it can no longer amend. - How do you mean, what the simplifications are? What complications we left out? - No it cannot, the Commission is still the only one with formal rights of initiative. In the cases where other actors propose new legislation, it is basically asking the Commission to draft an initiative. For example, If you gather enough signatures for a citizen's initiative, you'll still need to Commission to draft an official proposal.
Thank you for the video, it is so informative! I was wondering: is it possible for other users (for example me) to add subtitles to your videos? I would just translate it into my language (Italian), as the subtitles that are automatically generated are not very good. Thanks :)
Hi Johanna, that is absolutely possible. Thanks for offering to help make this information better accessible for more Europeans :) UA-cam just got rid of the Community Contributions that allowed such collaboration directly on the site. But we can send you the script and then import the translation. Let us know whether that works for you? :) Best not to post your personal email here of course so please send an email to info@ciceroni.eu Thanks again for offering your help, we really appreciate it!
I don't see lack of initiative as a problem. The fact EP has to ask Commission for approval basicly means the Commission has a veto power over the laws. The main difference is that this veto works at draft phase, while e.g. US Presidential veto at law phase. It's however true European vetos are a lot weaker in comparison to US veto. But even then European parliaments are bound be coalitions and therefore most of laws on national level must also be approved by the governments.
And besides, in extreme cases, the Commission's veto can be overruled by a vote of no confidence in the EP. This threat in practice means the Commission is likely to take these proposals seriously.
Just curious, where are the sources that you got this information from? Were they official sources from the EU itself or only from the mainstream media or only from anti-EU campaign groups?
Good question. The information comes from many sides. The technical information also comes from the EU itself as well as other public sources. We tend to check our scripts with experts like professors of public administration to make sure we have the facts straight but even then errors do occur. Although we try to read broadly, the anti-EU (or Pro-EU for that matter) campaigns are not usually a great source of information as they may have not only coloured but twisted information to fit their agenda. So at the very least it needs to be verified by independent sources anyway. In upcoming videos we are looking to have the all sources of our information public on our site. Not something we did back when we made this video.
I can see how a petition for a supranational government needs that high amount of signatures, but that looks like it would work better in a federalised Europe rather than the confederal EU. So it's not really a bad standard, it's just that people think more as citizens of their country of origin rather than as collective European citizens
Some comments have said how democratic it really is, others have said how undemocratic this system is. The thing that makes it less democratic is the magnitude of indirectness of the supposedly democratic process. In the same way that justice not only needs to be done, but also needs to be SEEN to be done, so it is with the democratic process. If you engineer a system like the EU where the magnitude of the indirectness of the democratic process is so great then it is not only SEEN to be undemocratic and essentially IS undemocratic. Each nation's commissioner is appointed after a democratic process in the sovereign nation. In the UK the name of the commisssioner is not announced prior to the election and is typically not one of the candidates being elected. Once the commissioner is appointed, they are supposed to act in favour of the EU rather than the sovereign nation's government from which they were appointed. As the commission is the principal (in practice - sole?) initiator of EU law, regulations, directives etc which the sovereign nation then needs to comply with, one can start to see how the vote I cast in my constituency in UK is so indirectly linked with the laws which will govern me as to make it such an indirect form of democracy that it is essentially undemocratic.
I agree with your point that transparency and visibility of the democratic process are very important and the EU could be doing much better here. It is a problem many national governments face, but indeed since people feel further removed from the decision making of the EU and are less used to the EU, it seems to be a bigger problem in case of the EU. Do you feel your national government is close enough or do you have similar feelings of distance with regard to national law making?
I have placed asterixes in the following text to highlight areas where UK law making appears to differ from EU law making - these are key differences for me. UK laws are created by MPs voting on Bills brought before parliament by the party with the overal majority of votes* (given the UK representative democratic system this means majority of constituency MPs rather than the popular vote). The Bills are put forward by elected members of parliament usually based on issues(proposals) which formed key differentiating factors between politcal parties at the most recent election*. Individual MPs can bring bills of their own *(private members bills) and I believe that members of the house of lords can do the same. The point being that the voters are governed by laws which resolve issues which are raised in the manifesto at the time of the election*. In the EU it seems that most law takes origin from the EU Commission* (an appointed body, albeit appointed by elected leaders after an election in democratic countries), these are then given to MEPs who act as rapporteurs and are responsible for taking that legislation through the EU law making system. When the voters were invited to vote for those MEPs, the EU commission did not outline their legislative aims to the electorate. So the voter is not really voting for the legislation by which they will then be governed*. That seems far too indirect, sufficiently indirect as to be undemocratic in my and 52% of the UK voters in the referendum which lead to Brexit.
I agree that in EU elections there should be more of a focus on the political positions of the parties. Another problem is the rather big lack of interest in the elections compared to national elections. Hopefully next year that will have improved, let’s wait and see. What I find interesting is that you talk about undemocratic but seem to be totally fine with a house or lords, a group of unelected nobles, bringing forward new bills and I believe blocking new legislation as well. Aren’t you uncomfortable with that? Also, you are used to the system of the UK with its constituencies etc. Others, like me, would probably find it strange at the least. Not saying it is a bad system, but it really depends what you’re used to. Anyway, you voted for Brexit due to the undemocratic aspects of the EU?
The sources are basically all from the EU itself, although they tend to be either overcomplicated or oversimplified. So the Wikipedia pages about the legislative procedure give some good summaries. In those articles you can also find links to other sources.
3:53 if you have a unicameral system how is it decided if 1 vote goes against or in favour the law? I thought both votes would go to what the single-camer voted for.
Politicians from countries that simultaneously wanna be in a democratic union, without being attacked for being undemocratic and bureaucratic, but who also don't want a transnational democracy because they wanna keep their own level (nation state) supreme, play "Brussels!" as the bully, and wanna be able to say to their electorate they can override European directives.
Given our human proclivity for folly, it’s inevitable that any institution will sometimes pass a law which is bad, or counterproductive, or which has unforeseen consequences. That’s why one of the most important features you want in law-making is nimbleness; the ability to rapidly repeal a law which has turned out badly in practice, and rapidly reverse course if that’s what people clearly want you to do. It seems to me that EU-made laws are especially sticky, especially hard to change later if the facts change.
i think it depends on law in question, how fast it's repealed or modified, whether its EU or national doesnt matter, if the law doesn't have big impact even if its bad (also depends on ones view) it doesn't get change fast, whether it's eu or national law. publicly matters a lot and it law only affects negatively relatively few people nothing might happen.
@@smithfinland214 In the UK the Thatcher government introduced a Poll Tax - in 1989 in Scotland, in 1990 in England. Even though the tax had been promised in the 1987 Conservative manifesto, its unpopularity led the Conservative Party to get rid of Margaret Thatcher and replace her with John Major in November 1990. Major immediately introduced legislation to repeal the tax before the next election. The tax was clearly a terrible idea, but strong and rapid political feedback led to it effectively being scrapped within months of its introduction. The Common Agricultural Policy was introduced in 1962. Problems with it soon became obvious. The European Commission first proposed reforms in 1968, but to no avail. By 1985 the CAP ate up three quarters of the EU’s total budget. The first meaningful reform occurred in 1992, largely forced on the EU by the USA and other countries through the Uruguay Round of GATT. Maybe people cared more about the Poll Tax than the the CAP. But there’s also a crucial political difference. In 1990 UK voters knew they could threaten to remove the Conservative government completely and replace it with its political nemesis. This threat focussed the minds of MPs, and they responded by ditching their most successful leader. It’s almost impossible for EU voters to co-ordinate to wield this kind of political threat against the European Commission.
@@Ciceroni1 yes.. I have seen other videos of yours on this matter.. And..I'm really thankful that you have given a clear and simple explanation on this topic unlike other UA-cam channels...❤
I Bought a clock from a Holland physical Store The Portuguese Govern made me pay + 80% of the total price ( claiming the origin , was from China ) this is a good business for Portuguese Govern , stealing their own people , even Europe has freedom of circulation of goods this should be against the law , i bought from a store but ,i am poor with no money for lawyers , that's why i am being robber ,shamelessly
I think it should be investigated if the European Union now and then is legislated with the Bible written as a story. The word immunity (Latin immunitas, freedom from obligations to the state) comes from a religious revelation from the middle ages, most likely from a pope to become lawless, and which has since been rewritten into full immunity, personal and functional immunity (legally, cannot be prosecuted for criminal act) to the kings (head of state), presidents, and prime ministers, for law decisions and actions. The political exploitation of the vital ecosystem has now led to forest death (force majeure) and how will it affect people's economy, etc.
@@Ciceroni1 the EU could improve by actually having more than one person to choose from when selecting who is going to be the leader. The EU claims that a President of the Parliament is elected but MEP's only get one person to choose from how is that democracy? Its either a or a.
I get your point, but it is actually democratic. During the actual elections (where citizens vote) each political group puts forward one candidate for the presidency. The candidate of the party who wins, becomes president. The approval of parliament (choosing either a or a as you put it) is only a formality so to speak.
It is unbelievable that the executive branch of the government(Commission) has so much power over the legislative branch(parliament). Its like the commission has a veto on new legislation. Which is unthinkable in a real democracy. The people make the laws and those who lead the country, lead the country while following those laws.
What you just described is direct democracy which is very rare, the only sovereign state that comes close to achieving it is Switzerland. In all (legitimate) democracies, which includes Switzerland, people vote for representatives to make laws.
I believe the EU is too corrupt and too bureaucratic for a petition to get anything changed. I mean honestly, not even the financial crisis of 2008 made them realize the euro currency is a mistake and a burden on most economies in the EU, and now we have another financial crisis waiting to happen. Not even the migrant crisis made them realize they have to protect the outside borders in order to be able to have open borders inside the schengen-area and they dont realize mass migration is destroying western civilization. They recently signed the Marrakesh treaty, so they want more immigration and think it is great. When will they realize that the EU is falling apart and a big part of the blame is on them. I dont think they will or when they do, it will already be too late. So every country should get as soon as they can... As an Dutchman is envy the British and their Brexit. They are not bound by the Euro, so exiting is a lot easier for them. But still dissolving currency unions is very possible. There have been plenty of cases in the past where this was done without big problems. So the Dutch as any other Euro county can get out if they want.
Why is this dangerous? Which part is dangerous? I don't understand. As I see it, the system is not perfect, but overall fairly well thought out, and with many checks and balances. What's so bad about it?
What is sickening about it? Though it is by no means perfect, I find it overall quite well thought-out, with many checks and balances. What do you not like about it, exactly?
As a eu law student, this video was really well made. Kudos
Thanks:) glad you like it!
Laws are passed undemocraticly that's the purpose of the corrupt unelected parasitic eu government great at forcing unpopular undemocratic laws on member states populations with the blessing of corrupt member state governments lol what a scam
Well done. You deserve more views. The video was really informative.
Thanks! Feel free to share our video so we get more views;)
Foorack yes yes I love it, do not despair on viewing figures as you tube may manipulating figures.
Thanks im studying for an EU test and have ADD and dyslexia which makes it hard to just sit down and read books so when there are informative videos that can help a lot. thanks
Happy we can help :)
This is really helpfull for my studies. Im reading the book ofcourse but this is a nice recap to refresh the information
Needed a recap on the EU and this was perfect. Maybe you could do something similar but with the UN instead after this series is done. Thank you for the informative video and you have gotten yourself a new subscriber.
Thanks for the compliment and we'll definitely consider making a video on the UN :)
You don't like democracy?
Unpopular undemocratic laws forced on member state populations lol
Idiot lol! The corrupt unelected parasitic eu government is brilliant at forcing unpopular undemocratic laws on member state populations lol that is why it was created to side step democracy
This is so helpful. It should be included in the school curricula. Well done!
Thanks for the compliment. You may suggest teachers to use it in school, in those cases we don't make trouble for copyright :)
Reading comments below gave me all sorts of illnesses... How come this is not democratic? Remember, council members and parliament MEPs come from your own countries, with the parliament members VOTED BY YOU. It is a form of indirect democracy, albeit with less democracy than in nation scale. The complicated process ensure that new laws are benefiting the majority AND not having severe negative effects on any particular member. As someone who lives in a country with rampant corruption and inept politicians, EU is a vastly superior system. Do not drown in the word democracy.
THANK YOU! That's the truth!
They came here to criticise EU and not to find truth. They often don't know how their countries work, much less to know how EU works. Many of those critics also think direct democracy is best democracy, which is assumption for which there's no proof, especially in todays complex world when opinion of public can be very different from real world.
Commission has the most power who isnt elected
Commission is indirectly elected, just like all other governments in Europe or the World.
E.g. Swiss government is very close in functioning to the EU Commission, main difference is that all states are represented in the Union and only some cantons are represented in the Switzerland, otherwise it's identical (Btw, this is what rejected EU Constitution wanted for EU too). *Directly elected government does not exist,* however some members are directly elected in semi-presidential and presidential systems, usually the head of government or state, e.g. Macron. EU is using parliamentarian system, meaning Commission is not seperate power body, but it's a body accountable to Parliament. Indirect election means you cannot vote for a person directly. Instead you vote for a party and if party wins then their candidate will take seat as long as they have 50% of votes or more, if not, they need to form a coalition, where usually the strongest party's candidate becomes the PM, e.g. Mrs May in the UK and coalitions in Continental Europe.
The meme of the undemocratic European Union is spreading but, man, i dont see the undemocraticness... The Council, is elected by the elected goverments of each country, then, they propose something, and the european comission, who only have the right to say no with reasons, draft the law asking everybody arround (also, elected by the parliament and the council, so, indirect democracy again) and then, the parliament, elected by the population of each country, can say yes, or no.
Then, more safeguards to avoid conflicts, each national parliament can say no to stop new laws...
Bureocratic, heavy and slow, but looks to me very democratic and efficient to avoid unnecesary problems...
Very informative . Thank you for explaing such a complicated process in a few minutes.Well done. !!
I love the EU, its like a mini UN, except it works, it is like a less chaotic HRE, except it works, it is like a less united USA, except it works
It is like a polished Soviet Union, except we still have to see who the new Stalin is going to be.
As other in the comment section, I am also a law student and this really helped. Thank you! Subscribed.
Great! Thank you!
Thanks for making this video dude, just started my EU law course at uni like 2 weeks ago and I have been looking for videos about it to at least make studying it less boring than just reading stuff on kortext
Very welcome! Glad it helps!
Thanks for this quick recap! Definitely gonna be helpful during my next exam :)
you make this so easy. please upload more on the eu!
After a long absence we are actually planning on making some more. So hopefully soon we’ll share some new videos :)
The EU construction is indeed complicated but in essence it does pretend to bring justice and democracy for its people.
However I am highly eurocritical, because there are two big problems:
1 - the EU is overly burocratic.
In great part this is because most of the people, representatives and politicians still think way TOO NATIONALISTIC instead of in a collective European sense. So all the nitti-witty exceptions of each country have to be taken in account for every nitty-witty decision. When you have lived in three different European countries like me and actually do not suffer any nationalistic preference anymore (yes, I consider it a disease) , you see and understand that all that nationalistic nitty-wittying is shortsighted and stupid, and not only reduces overall benefit, but in the end also your own little nationalistic benefit.
but much worse is
2 - Corruption!
Although in politically correct terms "they" call it 'lobbying'.
Here is where the politically and socially good intentions of the EU institutions are completely bought away by big business, industry and, of course, banks.
Here is where the 'market' becomes more important than people.
Here is where austerity on all European citizens has to finance basically German and French banks that should have gone default.
Here is where oil industry smashes CO2 reduction and other green goals.
Here is where TTIP and Monsanto (now Bayer) have tried to impose their own laws.
Here is where farmaceutical industry is able to impose vaccination obligations for whole countries.
Here is where the Netherlands and Luxemburg can maintain their top positions as Tax Havens (Juncker becoming EU president after having 'improved' Luxemburgs position as tax haven)
Here is where arms industrie supports Unitedstatian wars in arab countries causing the immigration 'problem', which in fact is not a problem but a symptom. (everybody should stop using the name of the continent for those people)
It's all about money and power.
If lobbying didn't happen, then Europa could truly be that Community the European citizens dream of. The existing EU is not a "Union" for the people, it is only for big business, banks and buyable politicians. It doesn't have anything to do with the original European Dream.
Solution?
Instead of cowardly running away from this high level maffia, like some countries pretend, we, the people have to go in there and CHANGE it! Politicians make people believe that as a country alone they stand stronger against the power of big business. Yeah.... sure! This is either a biiiiig mistake or a biiiiiig lie.
If you are eurocritic with some sense, you don't "just forget about it", you go and SOLVE it. At least you try!
I am not here to make political propaganda so no names or references, but anyone who is seriously interested in making a better Europa instead of having it fall apart look around and investigate, there are good options and you still have time to find a good choice for the EU elections in may 2019!
1. Agreed ;)
2. True, however this is not only a European problem, but a problem faced by all levels of government.
Out of interest, according to you, is there a political party running for elections next year that offers a solution to the problems you point out?
Now that you ask for it I dare to name DiEM25 specifically, led by Yanis Varoufakis, I guess you must have heard of them (www.DiEM25.org) You can also check some selected short videoclips (I'd recommend specially the one on the EuroGroup) on www.vimeo.com/EurOpinion (not just DiEM/Varoufakis).
Actually I'm not too much into politics, in fact DiEM25 (Democracy in Europe Movement 2025) began as a movement, to only later add a political wing. There is quite some internal and external fuzz going on about a lot of details about their program and even internal way of functioning, but for me the only thing that counts is the essence: maintain (of course) a united Europa, but go in there and CHANGE IT! Yanis calls it "Democratize" Europa. They (we) will be presenting as the only fully pan-European party for the elections.
Besides DiEM25 there are a lot of smaller national parties (and then grouped together on EU level) who want the same thing, mostly green and left-wing parties. Center and right-wing parties in favour of keeping Europa together only want so to maintain the status quo, and that is exactly NOT what we (I) want. They are the ones that make people want to leave.
Indeed the buyability of politicians by big business and banks is not just a European problem but a global disease (called neo-liberalism). My personal conviction is that if we don't break this soon, we (the whole world except the 1%) are in for a very dark and harsh future, and I don't think we'd reach the next century with a healthy global society or planet.
And, frankly, IMHO only a changed, strong, united Europe can break this. We are the only ones who have the combined resources of money and know-how on one hand, plus at least a certain will, willingness and mindset amongst its population to make this change (forget about this amongst Unitedstatians, Russians or Chinese).
Thank you for your question ;)
DIEM25 indeed is an interesting European alternative, Volt Europa is another. If you don't know it, could be interesting to check out. It will be very interesting to see how the 'European parties' will fare in the elections and afterwards in the EP.
Let's hope the future is not so very dark and harsh :)
I agree the EU must start talking more closely to the citizens. Now everything seems so far away from everyone, while they are very important actually.
Lobbying isn't necessarily a bad thing. The problem is when there's no rules to abide by when it's occurring. Sure, if you look at the US, since they have no rules, it's basically legalized bribery.
a GREAT and simple video about something really complicated and by reading ununderstandable. This is a precious gem and I think the EU should make a law that every EU citizen becoming an adult should once see it! ;)
Thanks a lot for this great compliment!
Names of the people who make the laws (accountability) and how does the EU electorate democratically get rid of these people they don't like (democracy)?
The laws that have already been passed must first be enforced before new laws can be enacted.
The fundamental right to privacy.
Most citizens do not even have privacy in their own homes
This leads to states of exhaustion and not infrequently to sleeping pills and alcohol abuse.
Apartments without Soundproof also endanger democracy.
"Without privacy there is no democracy"
The democratic deficit exists by extension. At the UK domestic level it's (in no order) citizen, MP, Parliament, Lords + Government. There's the deep well of civil servants too. Adding the EU level, including the UK process (in no order) we have citizen, MP, Parliament, Lords + Government, MEP, EU Parliament, Council of Ministers, Commission, EU Council and the secretariat working behind the scenes. That's further extending the connection we have between public and policy making and the idea that such mechanisms can accurately represent 500m people is a little far-fetched.
I've seen some people mention that the EU process is a protective and thoroughly preferable system to one of more direct democratic leanings. In all but saying so, they're admitting that they're happy for state mechanisms to do their thinking for them, and that the people around them shouldn't be trusted to hold an opinion. A bizarrely arrogant statement. If the EU system is what you like, then sure, enjoy. But there's nothing wrong with wanting to unhook yourselves from this somewhat esoteric system of inter-connected bodies either.
Good comment.
The more I learn about the EU, the more troubled I become.
How can you find out where in this process a specific proposal is? For example the European Commission proposed changes to updated requirements for driving licences and better cross-border enforcement of road traffic rules (press release 01/03/2023 IP_23_1145). I'd like to follow this in some way as it goes through the European Parliment and European Council. How do I do that?
You should be able to find info on the website of the Commission. It says the next step is that it will now be considered by the European Parliament and the Council under the ordinary legislative procedure. You might find details on those discussion in meeting notes and agenda's.
See here:
ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_23_1145
2:37 So can Parliament reject it immediately, or does it have to wait until the end? And also, what are the simplifications? And can the institutions at 1:36 and the citizens' initiative bypass the Commission? Thanks in anticipation for the answer.
-It does not have to wait until the end to reject. From the start it can accept, reject or amend. Just in the last reading it can no longer amend.
- How do you mean, what the simplifications are? What complications we left out?
- No it cannot, the Commission is still the only one with formal rights of initiative. In the cases where other actors propose new legislation, it is basically asking the Commission to draft an initiative. For example, If you gather enough signatures for a citizen's initiative, you'll still need to Commission to draft an official proposal.
Thank you for the video, it is so informative!
I was wondering: is it possible for other users (for example me) to add subtitles to your videos? I would just translate it into my language (Italian), as the subtitles that are automatically generated are not very good.
Thanks :)
Hi Johanna, that is absolutely possible. Thanks for offering to help make this information better accessible for more Europeans :)
UA-cam just got rid of the Community Contributions that allowed such collaboration directly on the site. But we can send you the script and then import the translation. Let us know whether that works for you? :)
Best not to post your personal email here of course so please send an email to info@ciceroni.eu
Thanks again for offering your help, we really appreciate it!
it's like combining Matrix with Inception.
lol, the path of legislation in national parliaments is not much simpler at all
@anonymusopina1 Which constitution did you vote for? and where do you see 5 presidents? And which rules resulted in your friends losing their jobs?
this is democracy lol
@@ja1111112
So we should make it even more complex by adding another set of bureaucratic institutions to the mix?
great video!
Thanks!
Great home educatio, thank you
I don't see lack of initiative as a problem. The fact EP has to ask Commission for approval basicly means the Commission has a veto power over the laws. The main difference is that this veto works at draft phase, while e.g. US Presidential veto at law phase. It's however true European vetos are a lot weaker in comparison to US veto. But even then European parliaments are bound be coalitions and therefore most of laws on national level must also be approved by the governments.
And besides, in extreme cases, the Commission's veto can be overruled by a vote of no confidence in the EP. This threat in practice means the Commission is likely to take these proposals seriously.
Yes, I have never actually heard any MEP complaining about Commission rejecting their proposal.
EU = ISIS
Ayatollah Merkel = Adolf Hitler + Abu Bakr al-Bagdhadi
*D E N M A R K O U T O F E U C A L I P H A T E*
Just curious, where are the sources that you got this information from? Were they official sources from the EU itself or only from the mainstream media or only from anti-EU campaign groups?
Good question. The information comes from many sides. The technical information also comes from the EU itself as well as other public sources. We tend to check our scripts with experts like professors of public administration to make sure we have the facts straight but even then errors do occur.
Although we try to read broadly, the anti-EU (or Pro-EU for that matter) campaigns are not usually a great source of information as they may have not only coloured but twisted information to fit their agenda. So at the very least it needs to be verified by independent sources anyway.
In upcoming videos we are looking to have the all sources of our information public on our site. Not something we did back when we made this video.
I can see how a petition for a supranational government needs that high amount of signatures, but that looks like it would work better in a federalised Europe rather than the confederal EU. So it's not really a bad standard, it's just that people think more as citizens of their country of origin rather than as collective European citizens
Thank you
Thank you!
Some comments have said how democratic it really is, others have said how undemocratic this system is. The thing that makes it less democratic is the magnitude of indirectness of the supposedly democratic process. In the same way that justice not only needs to be done, but also needs to be SEEN to be done, so it is with the democratic process. If you engineer a system like the EU where the magnitude of the indirectness of the democratic process is so great then it is not only SEEN to be undemocratic and essentially IS undemocratic. Each nation's commissioner is appointed after a democratic process in the sovereign nation. In the UK the name of the commisssioner is not announced prior to the election and is typically not one of the candidates being elected. Once the commissioner is appointed, they are supposed to act in favour of the EU rather than the sovereign nation's government from which they were appointed. As the commission is the principal (in practice - sole?) initiator of EU law, regulations, directives etc which the sovereign nation then needs to comply with, one can start to see how the vote I cast in my constituency in UK is so indirectly linked with the laws which will govern me as to make it such an indirect form of democracy that it is essentially undemocratic.
To suggest that this is an open democracy is like saying "the plans were on display"...google "Hitchhiker plans on display" :)
Here you go for non-readers : ua-cam.com/video/HNmIQX_ImgM/v-deo.html
I agree with your point that transparency and visibility of the democratic process are very important and the EU could be doing much better here. It is a problem many national governments face, but indeed since people feel further removed from the decision making of the EU and are less used to the EU, it seems to be a bigger problem in case of the EU.
Do you feel your national government is close enough or do you have similar feelings of distance with regard to national law making?
I have placed asterixes in the following text to highlight areas where UK law making appears to differ from EU law making - these are key differences for me. UK laws are created by MPs voting on Bills brought before parliament by the party with the overal majority of votes* (given the UK representative democratic system this means majority of constituency MPs rather than the popular vote). The Bills are put forward by elected members of parliament usually based on issues(proposals) which formed key differentiating factors between politcal parties at the most recent election*. Individual MPs can bring bills of their own *(private members bills) and I believe that members of the house of lords can do the same. The point being that the voters are governed by laws which resolve issues which are raised in the manifesto at the time of the election*. In the EU it seems that most law takes origin from the EU Commission* (an appointed body, albeit appointed by elected leaders after an election in democratic countries), these are then given to MEPs who act as rapporteurs and are responsible for taking that legislation through the EU law making system. When the voters were invited to vote for those MEPs, the EU commission did not outline their legislative aims to the electorate. So the voter is not really voting for the legislation by which they will then be governed*. That seems far too indirect, sufficiently indirect as to be undemocratic in my and 52% of the UK voters in the referendum which lead to Brexit.
I agree that in EU elections there should be more of a focus on the political positions of the parties. Another problem is the rather big lack of interest in the elections compared to national elections. Hopefully next year that will have improved, let’s wait and see.
What I find interesting is that you talk about undemocratic but seem to be totally fine with a house or lords, a group of unelected nobles, bringing forward new bills and I believe blocking new legislation as well. Aren’t you uncomfortable with that?
Also, you are used to the system of the UK with its constituencies etc. Others, like me, would probably find it strange at the least. Not saying it is a bad system, but it really depends what you’re used to.
Anyway, you voted for Brexit due to the undemocratic aspects of the EU?
Are we talking about the EU-Council or the council of the EU? That's the only important information i could not find.
Fair question.. the names are terribly confusing..
We are referring to the Council of the European Union in this video.
Hello, are there any sources for this video? Thank you
The sources are basically all from the EU itself, although they tend to be either overcomplicated or oversimplified. So the Wikipedia pages about the legislative procedure give some good summaries. In those articles you can also find links to other sources.
@@Ciceroni1 thank you!
Why couldn’t the textbook have just said that in like 5 pages instead of 20
Haha, well we tried to make it somewhat understandable. Hope it helps.
I love your video.
Complimenti è molto ben fatto!
I need to watch this for school and it helps but maybe you can talk a little more energised!
Haha, not falling asleep I hope?;) But we’ll try with our next videos. Thanks for the feedback!
It's created by bureau magic.
3:53 if you have a unicameral system how is it decided if 1 vote goes against or in favour the law? I thought both votes would go to what the single-camer voted for.
I believe that the two chambers have to agree on either yes or no. Like as if they were to pass a normal law, they also need to agree.
Song name?
Wow. Good vid
Thanks!
Can I place a guess and say you are Dutch or Flemish?
You can :) I wouldn’t underestimate the difference between the two though;)
@@Ciceroni1 Oh not at all! Also thanks for the very informative and comprehensive video
@@aeonss__________ Haha no worries, we're Dutch and we like our neighbours :)
You're very welcome for the video :)
my brain hurts
Haha imagine researching and writing this video ;)
@@Ciceroni1 lol 😁
No red card? 😕
For more, see "I'm just a bill."
Long story short, the unelected commission gets what it wants.
What about having a Red Card...that put an end to all this shuffling around paperwork
as political opponents they are a joke .
What do you mean exactly?:)
What kind of warped mind dreams up procedures like this?
Many countries and people together that all have their own preferences and fears.
Politicians from countries that simultaneously wanna be in a democratic union, without being attacked for being undemocratic and bureaucratic, but who also don't want a transnational democracy because they wanna keep their own level (nation state) supreme, play "Brussels!" as the bully, and wanna be able to say to their electorate they can override European directives.
why cant we just have an emperor
Hard to find good emperors though.. much of our system of laws is a heritage from the last European emperor: Napoleon.
Given our human proclivity for folly, it’s inevitable that any institution will sometimes pass a law which is bad, or counterproductive, or which has unforeseen consequences. That’s why one of the most important features you want in law-making is nimbleness; the ability to rapidly repeal a law which has turned out badly in practice, and rapidly reverse course if that’s what people clearly want you to do.
It seems to me that EU-made laws are especially sticky, especially hard to change later if the facts change.
i think it depends on law in question, how fast it's repealed or modified, whether its EU or national doesnt matter, if the law doesn't have big impact even if its bad (also depends on ones view) it doesn't get change fast, whether it's eu or national law. publicly matters a lot and it law only affects negatively relatively few people nothing might happen.
@@smithfinland214 In the UK the Thatcher government introduced a Poll Tax - in 1989 in Scotland, in 1990 in England. Even though the tax had been promised in the 1987 Conservative manifesto, its unpopularity led the Conservative Party to get rid of Margaret Thatcher and replace her with John Major in November 1990. Major immediately introduced legislation to repeal the tax before the next election. The tax was clearly a terrible idea, but strong and rapid political feedback led to it effectively being scrapped within months of its introduction.
The Common Agricultural Policy was introduced in 1962. Problems with it soon became obvious. The European Commission first proposed reforms in 1968, but to no avail. By 1985 the CAP ate up three quarters of the EU’s total budget. The first meaningful reform occurred in 1992, largely forced on the EU by the USA and other countries through the Uruguay Round of GATT.
Maybe people cared more about the Poll Tax than the the CAP. But there’s also a crucial political difference. In 1990 UK voters knew they could threaten to remove the Conservative government completely and replace it with its political nemesis. This threat focussed the minds of MPs, and they responded by ditching their most successful leader. It’s almost impossible for EU voters to co-ordinate to wield this kind of political threat against the European Commission.
Yellow cards and Orange cards... EU really is funny.
please use articles!!!! it would help a lot
What do you mean exactly?:)
It's still so cumbersome for me...😆
It's not easy, but making laws rarely is. To put it even simpler: The Commission writes laws, Parliament and the Council need to approve. Thats it:)
@@Ciceroni1 yes.. I have seen other videos of yours on this matter.. And..I'm really thankful that you have given a clear and simple explanation on this topic unlike other UA-cam channels...❤
I Bought a clock from a Holland physical Store
The Portuguese Govern made me pay + 80% of the total price ( claiming the origin , was from China )
this is a good business for Portuguese Govern , stealing their own people , even Europe has freedom of circulation of goods
this should be against the law , i bought from a store but ,i am poor with no money for lawyers , that's why i am being robber ,shamelessly
I think it should be investigated if the European Union now and then is legislated with the Bible written as a story. The word immunity (Latin immunitas, freedom from obligations to the state) comes from a religious revelation from the middle ages, most likely from a pope to become lawless, and which has since been rewritten into full immunity, personal and functional immunity (legally, cannot be prosecuted for criminal act) to the kings (head of state), presidents, and prime ministers, for law decisions and actions. The political exploitation of the vital ecosystem has now led to forest death (force majeure) and how will it affect people's economy, etc.
As a US citizen I would object to this massive over reach. Not enough input from the citizen.
Could you tell me how the US system has more input from citizens according to you?:) or how the EU system should be improved?
@@Ciceroni1 the EU could improve by actually having more than one person to choose from when selecting who is going to be the leader. The EU claims that a President of the Parliament is elected but MEP's only get one person to choose from how is that democracy? Its either a or a.
I get your point, but it is actually democratic. During the actual elections (where citizens vote) each political group puts forward one candidate for the presidency. The candidate of the party who wins, becomes president. The approval of parliament (choosing either a or a as you put it) is only a formality so to speak.
@@Ciceroni1 Sounds like a standard parliamentary system to me
How does the EU pass new laws? prescription...the brothers Grimm..🧙...🧵🧵🧵📌📌
I'm not following, where do the brothers Grimm come in?
🙏🙏🐧🐧🦅🦅🌶️🍌🍌🌿🐬🍎🍊🍑🧠🍪🍦🥒🍃🌈🌈🍍🍓🐠🐓🦃🍆🍒🥮🥮🍅🐓🐓🦜🦃🦃🦃🙏
John 3.16-21
Irexit
Noice
Reveals why the EU will never work
How so?
if that's not complicated enough 😂 5:00
P
this is pure democracy lol
It is unbelievable that the executive branch of the government(Commission) has so much power over the legislative branch(parliament). Its like the commission has a veto on new legislation. Which is unthinkable in a real democracy. The people make the laws and those who lead the country, lead the country while following those laws.
What you just described is direct democracy which is very rare, the only sovereign state that comes close to achieving it is Switzerland. In all (legitimate) democracies, which includes Switzerland, people vote for representatives to make laws.
Thats because EU is not a democracy. Its a technocracy masquerading as democracy.
Destroy Leftists - Yes exactly!
Unthinkable? Veto is normal right of government in many democracies.
I believe the EU is too corrupt and too bureaucratic for a petition to get anything changed. I mean honestly, not even the financial crisis of 2008 made them realize the euro currency is a mistake and a burden on most economies in the EU, and now we have another financial crisis waiting to happen. Not even the migrant crisis made them realize they have to protect the outside borders in order to be able to have open borders inside the schengen-area and they dont realize mass migration is destroying western civilization. They recently signed the Marrakesh treaty, so they want more immigration and think it is great. When will they realize that the EU is falling apart and a big part of the blame is on them. I dont think they will or when they do, it will already be too late.
So every country should get as soon as they can... As an Dutchman is envy the British and their Brexit. They are not bound by the Euro, so exiting is a lot easier for them. But still dissolving currency unions is very possible. There have been plenty of cases in the past where this was done without big problems. So the Dutch as any other Euro county can get out if they want.
Non democratly.
Why do you think so?
WOW, this is dangerous. All this time I thought the UK was stupid..
EU is not dying. Contrary, in 2025 other eastern countries will be may join to the EU. The British have already figured out what they are losing.
ja1111112 what are they losing?
ja1111112 I honestly think you've just realised they are losing nothing more than what they voted for 😂
Why is this dangerous? Which part is dangerous? I don't understand. As I see it, the system is not perfect, but overall fairly well thought out, and with many checks and balances. What's so bad about it?
Sickening system, and even more sickening that some people accept it.
What is sickening about it? Though it is by no means perfect, I find it overall quite well thought-out, with many checks and balances. What do you not like about it, exactly?
Thank you
You're welcome ;)