Democratic Deficit in the Eu Essay

The EU being an example of democratic deficit can be argued both ways one being bad for people because they can make laws that the people don’t like but they have to follow them regardless and the other being the fact that the EU makes laws that helps the country as a whole such as education and health.

When identifying the presence of a democratic deficit in the European Union, it is important to consider a range of factors, including international treaties and the effect they had on its structured governmental framework. One of the first official agreements established by the European Union (formerly

The democratic deficit is a theory developed by scholars in order to illustrate that the European Union and its institutional bodies suffer from a lack of democracy (Wincott, 1998, p. 414). However, there are many definitions of the democratic deficit (Chryssochoou, 2000; Justice, 1996; Warleigh, 2003; Weiler, Haltern & Mayer, 1995) depending on the views and approaches of each scholar. Joseph Weiler's ‘standard version' of the democratic deficit is one of the most common definitions and it is a set of widely-used arguments by academics, scholars and the media (Weiler et al., 1995, cited by Follesdal & Hix, 2005, p. 4). It consists of five claims that explain why the EU can be called undemocratic and they are the following: a) there is an

The multigovernmental nature of the European Union and the national governments of its member states also helps to decrease the democratic deficit, not only on a supranational level, but on a national level as well (Eising 2011). Because there is a division of powers and sovereignty between these two levels of governance, citizens have the capacity, through interest group activity, to represent their interests to two different legislative bodies that could pursue legislation in their favour (Kohler-Koch 1997; Eising 2011). Similarly, due to the relatively nascent state of European Union interest group activity, many groups with similar interests are combining and coordinating efforts in order to have a bigger influence over policy decisions (Greenwood 2003, Eising 2011). Because of this unique phenomenon, smaller groups may work in tandem with

A Democratic Deficit in the EU The question over the legitimacy of the EU has been a nearly continuous debate and many commentators appear to agree that the EU suffers from a severe ‘democratic deficit’. There are many reasons why this perception is so widespread. As a multinational body it lacks the grounding in common history and culture upon which most individual polities can draw.

The European Commission – The commission is the EU’s administrative and executive body, it is headed by a president and has a further 24 commissioners.

There is no single body that can be described as the Union’s legislature. Both the Council and the Parliament play significant roles in the process. The European Parliament is frequently accused of democratic deficit. In particular, there are two separate issues to consider: one relates to its composition and another is connected to the engagement of citizens in Parliament. First of all, the European Parliament initially consisted of delegates designated by the Parliaments of Member States, but since 1979, it has been directly elected by the people according to the national electoral system of each Member State. Undoubtedly, that reform helped to overcome the democratic deficit to some extent. Nevertheless, the European Parliament is often criticized of failing to generate much commitment and

Treaty of Lisbon has provided that Union should uphold the representative democracy and thus, the legislative power is divided between the European Commission (‘the Commission’) which represents the interest of the European Union as a whole, the Council of Ministers (‘the Council’) which represents the Member States’ interests or their citizens and the European Parliament which represents its citizens’ interests. However, only 34% turned out to vote at the last EU election which implied a growing dissent in Europe. The EU is described as “undemocratic from the start”. The gist of the question is whether the EU law-making process is sufficiently democratic. EU’s democratic performance should be judged on the basis of subsidiarity, representativeness, accountability and engagement.

In this assignment I will be assessing the democratic accountability of the European Union. I will begin by briefly describing the institutions, their functions, compositions and discuss how they work as check and balance system to ensure democratic accountability further to look on to how laws are made and what they are In order to establish whether or not the EU is in fact answerable to its citizens.

This essay will review the difference types of competences and examine the effectiveness of the European Court of Justice in ensuring that EU institutions do not exceed the bounds of their competence in adopting legislation.

The European Union (EU) is fundamentally democratic and is evident through its institutions, however, the current democratic electoral structure is of great concern. The EU is a new type of political system, often referred to as a sui generis, implying its uniqueness as there exists and a non comparable political body. The EU can neither regarded as a ‘state’ nor as an ‘international institution’ as it combines supranational as well as intergovernmental characteristics (Hix, 1999, p7). In this regard it has developed its own understandings of what democracy is. It is evident that the development of and spread of democracy is a central concept and foundation to all politics within the EU, and remains focuses on makings its governing

This paper will assess the claim that supremacy of EU law is still an evolving and debatable concept. To do this, I have divided this paper into four sections. The first section will discuss the establishment of supremacy in EU law through ECJ case law. The second section will explore the vibrant debate surrounding constitutional pluralism that has arisen since the early 1990s. The third section will examine the debate and impact of the codification of primacy in the early 2000s. The fourth section will examine the extent to which the principle of sovereignty has been accepted in three EU Member States, namely, the United Kingdom, Germany, and Poland.

The European Union calls itself “a unique economic and political partnership between 27 democratic European countries” (1) which apparently aims to promote “peace, prosperity and freedom for its 495 million citizens – in a fairer, safer world” (1). While this may be a noble sentiment, in reality the EU is an inefficient, bureaucratic mess. It is my belief that, while the European Union is fundamentally a good idea, it is turning into an undemocratic kleptocracy that will gradually begin to remove our civil liberties while causing great damage to many areas including the environment and society.

The European Union (EU) is not a typical international organization. The mix of intergovernmental and supranational institutions makes the EU a unique, distinctive political, and economic system. As Europe has spiraled from one crisis to the next, difficult discussions haves arisen about how much more power should be delegated to Brussels. Even though the EU advocates for “ever closer union”, through increased integration, states are becoming hesitant to relinquish power to the EU. This is due to the fact that state sovereignty has become threatened; it is being compromised by a combination of the lack of effective democratic institutions and the loss of states have lost control of law-making to legislation power to EU institutions. Euroenthuthiasts argue that state sovereignty is enhanced, not threatened, by reallocating power to EU institutions. However, Eurosceptics dispute that too much control has seceded to the EU making is a threat to state sovereignty. My position aligns with Eurosceptics, for the EU has weakened state sovereignty do to increased centralization of power in EU institutions that lack legitimacy. The European Project has obtained a copious amount of jurisdiction from states and eroded a basic fundamental freedom of the modern state- sovereignty. Since the EU has with goals to deepen and widen integration it’s clear that forfeiting state sovereignty will only intensify. My essay will start with a brief history of the European Union and a short

The European Commission is the Executive (governmental) body of the EU, initiating legislative proposals and also managing the EU’s budget (Europa, 2007). Each commission operates for a five-year period, with meetings taking place in Brussels every Wednesday. The Commission consists of a President of the Commission and twenty-eight commissioners (some vice presidents). Employees of the Commission are organised according to department (Directorates-General) and answer to a Commissioner. The Commission exists in order to represent the interests of the whole of the EU (thus arguably the whole of Europe), as opposed to individual Member States. The Commission represents the EU on a global basis and is the main participant in negotiations in areas such as trade. The appointment of Commissioners is the responsibility of the Parliament, with all having previously assumed senior positions in politics in their own country, usually within its national government. Proposals are drafted by the senior civil servant (Director-General. A proposal may be adopted if more than half of the Commissioners decide to adopt it. Once agreed, all Commissioners must give their unconditional support – similar to the collective responsibility held by the Scottish executives and the UK. The Commission works closely with both