Eurosceptics often accuse the EU of being a ‘sham democracy’. Normally this charge is overblown, but even supporters have a hard time defending the long-running ‘stitch-up’ deal in the European Parliament. Traditionally, the two biggest political groups – the socialists and the centre-right – have a ‘technical agreement’ to divide the position of President of the European Parliament between themselves for alternating two-and-a-half-year terms.
The deal guarantees large majorities for the president, and it arguably gives the socialist grouping more power than it would otherwise have (the centre-right has gained the plurality of votes in every European Parliament election since 1999). It also encourages political stability, and promotes the kind of compromise and consensual decision-making that Europe is (in)famous for.
Critics, however, argue it neuters the parliament. Without a combatitive and aggressive opposition, can there be true oversight of decision-making? If political positions are carved up in shady backroom deals, then how can citizens have a meaningful say? Why bother with the facade of MEPs ‘electing’ the president if the two main groups just take turns?
The current President of the European Parliament, Martin Schulz, recently announced he was stepping down. He had already somewhat broken with the orthodoxy by serving an unprecedented two sequential terms (with the public support of Jean-Claude Juncker, President of the European Commission). However, MEPs were threatening to rebel at the prospect of a third term, and it now looks like the cosy deal between left and right will be reinstalled.
Should the President of the European Parliament be decided by a ‘stitch-up’? Or is it time for the biggest party to claim the position, based on how citizens vote in the European elections (even if that means the centre-right dominates the top spot)? Or maybe MEPs shouldn’t vote along party lines at all, and the next president should be chosen based on merit and after an open debate comparing the candidates’ programmes? Let us know your thoughts and comments in the form below, and we’ll take them to policymakers and experts for their reactions!
35 comments Post a commentcomment
the rotating system is good!
Yes, goldman sachs representative, then lehmann brothers then goldman sachs again.
@Remi Depernet
Brilliant riposte!
You amaze me any time! And you amaze me from bad to worst!
And why the bloody hell don’t ask should the damn President be elected by the European citizens directly instead bunch of idiots in parliament choose it?!
Where is the Separation of powers when those who have to control each other are actually a uniform whole?!
Damn people THINK!!!
Take your own advice and read the article and think. Why would the people elect the chair of parliament, and not parliament itself? What separation of powers when we are talking about the president of parliament? Go back to first class in school and learn to read. Then learn to read a text twice before replying to it, because you clearly suffer from a gross case of verbal incontinence.
Did you not vote for the MEP’s? Do you know what a parliamentary democracy is? Do you know ANYTHING at all?
Ou Jean-Piere knows everything he is the smartest guy here!
Yeah its my mistake I thought for the President of the Commission which is also elected by the parliament – in fact nobody think for Schulz – a jerk who did nothing in his mandate!
For your info Junkers and his cronies is elected by nobody but themselves and they are answerable to nobody! I’m not impressed with your sense of “democracy”!
Maybe, the president of the parliament should belong to an opposition group, to ensure that the majority doesn’t get too much power
.
It can’t change as its what the Lisbon treaty dictates.
‘Stitch up’ is how the EU works, Brussels knows that when the people are asked they say no to their ever closer dogma dogma so they want as little public participation as possible.
gli euroscettici non sono scettici , sono sicuri .Il socialismo senza Stato non può esserci dunque non diamo nomi a forze inesistenti per definizione. Come eleggere il Presidente della UE è un problema degli euristi , gli euroscettici non lo vogliono dunque non si pongono il problema di come eleggerlo ma di come uscire da questro mostro UE
Eurosceptics are not skeptics, are safe .The socialism without State may not, therefore, be we do not give names to forces exist by definition. How to elect the President of the EU is an issue of euristi, eurosceptics do not want it, then they do not raise the issue of how to elect him but how to get out Questro EU monster
This was changed a couple of years ago, so that the party with the largest number of elected MEPs automatically nominates the Presdient of the Parliament after each election of the Parliament. Which is how we ended up with Mr Juncker as his Party is now the largest in the European Parliament. Not everyone was delighted with this more democratic outcome, I seem to recall.
You have confused the President of the European Parliament with the President of the European Commission (not that the Spitzenkandidat system is a great example of democracy anyway)
Dont care.. we are out of that corrupted organisation..
if there was a pan european popular election of the commission’s president it will male people invested in the EU and they would not see it as an undemocratic bureaucratic abstraction
People that see it as undemocratic probably don’t actually know how the elections work.
Evans Fu It doesn’t matter, the perception is what it is
So, people don’t know anything about it and their perception is wrong but that’s what matters?
Facts are useless against feelings now is that it? That’s no way to run anything, we should focus on actually educating the people, anything else is a waste of time.
@Jason Dougenis
Wrong!
The Eurovision Song Contest demonstrates how fickle/corrupt a lot of EU folk are – I do not want to pool my democracy with such basketcases.
The whole set up called be called a right balls up like the whole of the E.U..
Let’s just get out and have nothing to do with it.
¿Podrían reducir el número de europarlamentarios? De 750 que hay en la actualidad a 376 , la mitad,respetando que todos los países estén representados.
Por favor si me responden que sea en español
What does really do the European Parliament ? It can’t write norms and laws, it has to wait for the Commission Européenne en Belgique / Europese Commissie in Belgie to give them something to debate on, and then also it’s up to national parliaments to adopt the directives. All they do is read reports they make, who knows how.
W Marine le Pen
No drugs while debating, please
And why have an EP President at all? We have a Commission President, a Council one. Do we really need a third popinjay confusing things? Can the EP not be content with its role as it is? Why does it see a need to create an entity out of what is essentially nothing?
Please, dont forget and make a voice in parlament about primordial values when UE was funded.
Im very grateful to be and understand UE, thank you all.
@José Mendes
The EU is in the mess it is in because of its ‘founding fuhrers’ – said cabal created an EU that adopted a French-like mentality and thus we see the ‘banana federation’ that is the EU today.
@ Tarquin Farquhar
Had it not rather been a British electorate last June that had difficulties with the rule of (European) law than any ‘banana lovers’ from other member states? Btw, great development: anti-EU brainwash your electorate by mass media for decades and afterwards blame ‘uneducated white rurals’ for anti-elitist behaviour. Glad not to have such insincere elites in most other member states. At least, without British brakemen/-women Europeans can now build a common super state to the better benefit of the people.
@Peter
The EU funds 1000s upon 1000s of academic posts – I am guessing that anti-EU ‘types’ would be, shall we say ‘slightly disadvantaged’ in obtaining such jobs.
There are many mass-media outlets that are pro-EU to the point of controversy – eg The Guardian, BBC, CNN and worst of all EuroNews.
The biggest predictive attribute WRT the UK’s last referendum was NOT ‘education’ – it was ‘wealth’.
The EU is dominated by ‘big-business’ – ‘big-business’ is fundamentally at odds with the welfare of the ‘little people’ like you and I.
The EU rules were set-up without the UK’s involvement, ergo it has democratic accountability on a par with other banana-like entities and would always ultimately be at odds with the common-law (more democratic) ethos prevalent in the UK.
8 of the 10 poorest Northern EU regions are in the UK – too much UK wealth was used to support the infrastructure of the Club Med countries at the expense of many poor British regions.
The likes of Spain and Poland [both smaller than the UK] each have a greater representation in the EU civil service despite both being EU ‘beggar nations’. Why? Endemic discrimination against Brits.
Oh and BTW, the EU is regarded by TI as being more corrupt than the UK – it is no wonder that Brits decided to leave the ‘Banana federation’.
The EU was a good idea BUT it has morphed into a 21st century ‘reich’ that will see the wealth and stability of the Northern EU nations drained and passed onto ungrateful, undemocratic and unaccountable Club Med nations – instability awaits…
President of EU is dictator elected same way like the north korean lider or cuban lider. is shame on all people in EU. END EU NOW!! canot fixt something that does not work.
We have the possibility to vote for exceptional, hard worker and implicated women ! In this moving period it’s about time we give them a chance to influence positively our world !
We must support the EP for its efficient job to which national medias do not give enough attention. A fully open process to select the next president would be a factor for increasing the support from citizens all over the continent
Yes. A stitch-up is the best solution. Particularly if you want to keep undermining the credibility of the European Parliament in front of the public. One more argument for Marine Le Pen campaign in France.
Why allowing an open election when you can have a fantastic behind-the-doors-deal?
What a huge group of good for nothing, money spending fellows.