Does Europe have too many presidents? The President of the European Council, the President of the European Commission, the President of the European Parliament, the Presidency of the Council of the European Union (that last one held by a country, not an individual). How is Trump supposed to know who to call if he wants to speak to Europe?

If democratic institutions are too confusing for most people to follow, are they still democratic? Would it be better to merge the positions of President of the European Commission (currently held by Jean-Claude Juncker) and the President of the European Council (currently occupied by Donald Tusk) into one post? As Juncker has put it: “Europe would be easier to understand if one captain was steering the ship”

What do our readers think? We had a comment sent in by Marieta, arguing that “Europe needs ONE strong leader with [a] vision”. This quickly provoked a response from Clive, saying: “Um… no. This is precisely what Europe does NOT need. It does not need the EU to use the economic mess (which it caused) as an excuse to grab even more power.”

Should the EU have a single European President? We asked Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) from all sides of the political spectrum to stake out their positions on this question, and it’s up to YOU to vote for the policies you favour. See what the different MEPs have to say, then vote at the bottom of this debate for the one you most agree with! Take part in the vote below and tell us who you support in the European Parliament!

Radical Left
Marisa Matias (GUE-NGL), Member of the European Parliament:

Heidi Hautala (Group of the Greens), Member of the European Parliament:

Liberal Democrats
Marian Harkin (ALDE), Member of the European Parliament:

Centre Right
Lukas Mandl (EPP), Member of the European Parliament:

Anders Vistisen (ECR), Member of the European Parliament:

I think the two positions are fundamentally different from each other, and therefore I don’t share the sentiment that it would be better for the European Union’s future development to unite them into one. I think we should go in a different direction, and I think the Commission should go back to being a less political entity and should instead be a more civil service entity, whose primary role is facilitating the political direction given by the Member States and by the European Parliament. Then we can have a President of the European Council that can set the direction on behalf of the leaders of states and governments. I think that would be better for the future of Europe.

Stuart Agnew (EFDD), Member of the European Parliament:

No. This is just a suggestion trying to fine-tune something that shouldn’t be there anyway.

Curious to know more about the idea of the EU having a single president? We’ve put together some facts and figures in the infographic below (click for a bigger version).

IMAGE CREDITS: CC / Flickr – European Council
With the support of:


Who do YOU agree with on this issue?


Results for this issue

See the overall results

193 comments Post a commentcomment

What do YOU think?

  1. avatar

    That would give the impression that the EU is a single Nation State & who the hell wants that ?! A very stupid idea.

    • avatar

      You work at the unelected European civil service, eh? I can’t remember the last time the British civil service was elected. Perhaps you do.

    • avatar

      The British civil service does not create our laws but your unelected European Commission does make yours so you are comparing apples and pears comrade. As for the rest of your comment I can only say ‘Cambridge Analytica are more than welcome to my facebook details’ 8| lol

    • avatar

      What “laws” are we talking about. The Commioners don’t appoint themselves, each member state puts forward people to the post of Commissioners. Then there is the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament. You have to distinguish between Directives and Regulations. You have the same in the Uk, the difference between primary and secondary legislation. So an Act of Parliament, like the Road Traffic Act, is primary legislation which gives the Executive powers to produce Regulations, like the Road Traffic Regulations. Look at what the Government is trying do with all the EU legislation that need to be incorporated into UK law and the Henry VIII powers the Government want to use, bypassing Parliament. So much for the “unelected” bureaucrats. I rest my case.

    • avatar

      That’s right the European commission is ‘appointed’ not elected. Thanks for proving my point. In the UK the civil service works for the elected government and parliament but in the EU the parliament in merely the rubber stamping department of the unelected commission who create and enforce its own laws.(aka Politburo).

      The Commission is the ‘sole’ EU institution tabling laws for adoption by the Parliament and the Council which means both the Parliament and the Council are subservient to the unelected commission which fulfils the definition of a dictatorship. Hence the question on this page about creating a single President to give the illusion of democracy when in reality it is little different to the position of Stalin.

      Definition of a ‘Dictatorship’:

      A dictatorship is a government or a social situation where one person or unelected group makes all the rules and decisions. Dictatorship implies absolute power — one person who takes control — of a political situation,


    • avatar

      Ivan The Members of the European Commission are appointed by our directly elected governments and have to pass a hearing in the directly elected European Parliament in order to be appointed at all. The European Commission does not ‘create’ laws. It drafts them. It does not pass them into law.

      And as Martin Finke points out there is a big difference between directives and regulations. The drafts are scrutinised and can be modified by the directly elected European Parliament. They are also scrutinised by the Europe Committee of every member state, which can also change legislation or block it. They are then discussed at various levels with the Council of the European Union by representatives of national governments. It is the elected heads of state and government who then pass the legislation in the Council. Laws are not created by the European Commission.

    • avatar

      John Well put, John

    • avatar

      Hello Ivan… can you comment on this:
      The House of Lords of the United Kingdom, also known as the House of Peers, is the upper house of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Unlike the elected House of Commons, all members of the House of Lords (the excluding the hereditary peers) are appointed. :-)

    • avatar

      Manuel Simple, unlike your unelected European Politburo the House of Lords does not make our laws . Next question please :)

    • avatar

      Ivan The House of Lords is the upper house of the bicameral parliament. This the near official definition. Then is the same than in any bicameral (or two chambers) parliament. Like in USA with the Senate and the House of Representatives. Or like in Brazil with the Federal Senate and the Chamber of Deputies. Maybe you do not know European history. In the time of the Medieval European Kingdoms there was two chambers parliaments. One parliament for the upper class people and one parliament for the lower class people. Either today is like that in practically all the Europeans countries…

    • avatar

      Manuel Alonso Lets try this again because simple facts are obviously difficult for you to grasp. The unelected House of Lords ‘DOES NOT’ make our laws but your unelected European Commission ‘DOES’ make yours, this makes the British two house system democratic because the elected House of Commons make the law while the EU is undemocratic because the unelected Commission does which puts it moreon a par with the Politburo of the EU’s predecessor the USSR than anything considered democratic.

      Have you got it now ?

    • avatar

      Ivan The British government isn’t elected either. They are appointed. The leader of the winning party in a two-party system becoming the prime minister is just a tradition. If there were more significant parties, the government would result from a negotiation among parties. like in most of Europe. The European Commission is the government of the EU, the president of the European council (which represents the countries) is the real president. Maybe the president of the European Commission should n¡be called ‘prime commissioner’.

    • avatar

      Eduard s Good grief, I do wish you pro EU fanatics would do a little basic research before spamming my posts

      1. Unlike the de-facto government of the EU every member of the British government ‘was’ elected in their own right as MP’s, not appointed as in the EU Commission & USSR Politburo .

      2. Theresa May ‘was elected’ as an MP by the people of Maidenhead, where is Juncker’s constituency exactly ?

      3. Not even the Polish people voted (or wanted) Tusk so where is his democratic legitimacy ?

      4. I got bored with your idiotic ramblings so ignored the rest of your uneducated post.

    • avatar
      Tarquin Farquhar

      Not only is Ian 100% correct but too the EU civil service is demographically challenged to the point that democracy is subverted.

      For example how come there are more Spaniards, more Poles and more Italians in the EU civil service than there are UK subjects in the EU civil service? Despite the UK having a larger population than any of the 3 cited countries – very strange!

      As an aside, given the UK comprise c13% of the EU’s total population I EXPECT to see the EU civil service SHRINK by c13% when the UK leaves the prison that is the EU!

      The elites of this world, the EU civil service, the OECD and the UN amongst others must clean up their respective acts.

    • avatar

      Ivan Yes, the House of the Lords, do not make the laws “per se” but they scrutinises bills, reviews and amends Bills, and in certain limited circumstances they can prevent Bills passing into law. Then the word “bill” is a formal proposal for a new law, or a change in the law, that is put forward by the Government for consideration by Parliament. Then the House of the Lords are doing their legislative work more or less in the same way that any bicameral parliament.

    • avatar

      Manuel Alonso They ‘scrutinises bills’ put forward by the ‘elected’ government’ whereas in the EU the ‘unelected’ European Commission creates the laws which are then ‘scrutinised’ by the elected but unasked for European Parliament.

      The former is democratic the latter is a dictatorship.

      Thanks for proving my point comrade. :)

  2. avatar

    Simpler is better: a single president would be better able to coordinate Member States and the Commission. A single clear personality at the head of the EU would also be easier to understand and identify with for ordinary people.

    • avatar

      It would be a good idea to ask the peoples in the 27 member states if they want one, but the unelected elite running the EU already know the answer so would just use a treaty to bypass democracy & enforce it.

  3. avatar

    Of course it should! But first it should improve the political union! If not why a European president?

    • avatar

      Who exactly wants a ‘political union’ ?

    • avatar

      I personally first of all! And millions of other Europeans!

    • avatar

      And the vast majority that would be against it, what would you do about them ?

    • avatar

      If the vast majority would have been against the European Union they would not have been part of it! The door is open!

    • avatar

      You don’t have to worry! Stay out of EU! Let the rest of us believe in the European Union and the common culture and future together!

    • avatar

      We are all aware of the various problems but we chose European Union, a common future and open borders! Good luck to you!

    • avatar

      The sad fact is that so many people believe what they read in the British ‘Express’ newspaper. I believe in free speech and freedom of the press, but the press should be held to account over what they publish as they ultimately inform public opinion.

    • avatar
      Tarquin Farquhar

      Your defence of “don’t bother with the EU as you are no longer (or soon will be) in it” is something that I would concur with EXCEPT for the fact that the EU is continually trying to keep the UK attached to the EU via the ‘single market’ or the’customs union’ carrots.

      I WANT to be divorced from the EU, the EU is a German-dominated undemocratic entity that is soon approaching spasms, paroxysms and contortions of instability, poverty and civil strife!

    • avatar

      Because it would be confirmation that the EU is a dictatorship and not the claimed democracy ?

    • avatar

      So what makes the EU a less democracy then UK?

    • avatar


      1. the UK is a Nation while the EU is not.

      2. Our Prime minister is ‘elected’ while your president(s) are not.


      The UK is democratic while your pointless EU is not.

      QED :)

    • avatar

      The UK is more or less a mix of different (occupied) nations while the EU is definitely not.

      The European parliament (elected by the European people) will choose the head of the commission, so the same as in the UK.

    • avatar

      The EU is not more ‘artificial’ then the UK. The people in Europe have more in common then you would like to see in your isolated island.

    • avatar
      Paul X

      Nobody in the UK ( 3rd highest net contributor to EU budget) voted for Juncker or his party…what democracy?

    • avatar
      James McManama

      @Paul That’s because the Conservatives, under David Cameron, made the decision to pull out of the EPP and form their own group and europarty.

    • avatar
      Paul X

      @ James

      I know the reason why but that doesn’t alter the fact that the tax paying UK members of public had no say in Juncker’s appointment, therefore, it is a lack of democracy

    • avatar
      James McManama

      @Paul Well, it’s not true that entirely because of this reason the sum total of the British public had “no” say in the Spitzenkandidaten process, because they could have voted for (and many did vote for) Labour, the Lib Dems, the Greens, each of whom kept their ties to their European political groups / parties (which, in turn, where all putting forward spitzenkandidates).

      There was also a 0% chance of Nicola Sturgeon becoming Prime Minister of the UK in 2015, even though the SNP took close to 100% of the Scottish seats in the GE. That doesn’t mean Scottish voters (and taxpayers, mind) didn’t experience true democracy in 2015. Actually, possibly a bad example on my part. Most SNP voters would say that’s exactly the problem, and is why Scotland is better off out. XD

      Still, you take my point. If Tories really, really wanted a hand in electing the EPP’s spitzenkandidat, they should not have elected David Cameron as leader of the party (a man who ran, during the leadership election, on a platform of pulling out of the EPP).

    • avatar

      Ivan, i can’t hear you !

    • avatar
      James McManama

      Sorry, I should say “many nationalists would say” not “most SNP voters would say”.

    • avatar
      Paul X

      @ James, as regards a “no” vote, democracy to me is voting for what you believe in, not voting against what you don’t

      And agreed, Scotland did experience true democracy, yes the SNP won nearly 100% of the seats in 2015 but due to the UK FPTP system that was with only 50% of the vote, so like it or not, some Scots still had the opportunity, and did, vote for the Tory party (a Scottish Tory vote which actually doubled at the last election)

      My point is, as the 3/4th highest contributor to the EU budget, to not have any influence in it’s ruling party is a democratic disgrace, yes Cameroon is to blame but having someone to blame doesn’t make it any more democratic for the UK taxpaying public

  4. avatar

    Perhaps it would be a good idea to merge the posts of the President of the EU comission and the President of the European council – in any case we need elected leaders, not “behind-closed-doors” apointees! That was ugly the last time around, and we have to get this in order for the next presidencies!

    • avatar

      The European Commission have already said the spitzenkandidat process will be repeated for the next MEP election, they had better hope the anti EU MEP’s don’t form a single party as they could well be the biggest party in the European Parliament. .

      Marine Le Pen as President of the European Parliament, now that would be funny :)

    • avatar

      Things like that make me often wonder, why these people aren’t honest – leading a kind of “brexit” campaign in their respective countries?! Noo, instead they candidate to be MEPs, suck the money from the EU, all the while continuing bitching about how bad nad undemocratic the EU is!! :S

      Some people may vote for Le Pen or other “freedom” parties in their countries, but I would bet that for the forseeable future the vast majority of people appreciates the EU and is fond to be a member of it! =)

    • avatar

      On your comment, I think the elections for the European parliament are actually OK – if people don’t engage too much in them that is to some degree their flaw!

      As for the likes of Juncker and Tusk, while they seem in general decent, I would prefer to have these important positions elected, but neither of them was! Years ago the media was “on fire” about how shadowy and untransparent this process is, but time has made them forget. Now we can just wonder, how many years more of Juncker & co. will be “bestoved upon us” by our dear leaders?!

    • avatar

      Simon Who would you like to see as head of the European Commission or the European Council?

    • avatar
      Paul X

      So Simon, you believe all MEP’s should be pro EU?……isn’t that a bit like holding a referendum on abolishing Xmas but only allowing turkeys to vote?

    • avatar

      No Ivan Burrows anymore 😄

    • avatar

      man please

  5. avatar

    Yes! 1 is much cheaper than 27 with very expensive entourage

  6. avatar

    What is the point of a single president? The majority of states in Europe nowadays have a President and a Prime minister/Head of government and it works just fine.

  7. avatar

    EU is not even a confederation. US it’s a federation. Every American state has a governor. One could call him “president”

  8. avatar

    A German for instance who would send the Bulgarian soldiers fight again Russia because of German interests. A nice way to introduce foreign occupation

    • avatar

      I see your point, but from many personal encounters I trully believe that noone in Germany would like to send soldiers anywhere! ;-)

    • avatar

      When Germany is a member of NATO there won’t be such a choice. A puppet president would decide in the name of all. And most probably at the expense of some countries that would have to obey against their will or interests. We see it happening with NATO for instance. Or the common Euro currency which is catastrophic for the countries that have been deindustrialized. Centralized power never has worked in favor of the peoples. Be it the USSR be it the Roman Empire be it the Ottoman Empire or the British Commonwealth.

  9. avatar

    I always thought that EE is going this way, operating as a multinational…now they want a CEO officially to manage regional HOs and countries … how effective they have been with the so far “shared vision of EU”?

  10. avatar

    Thought Tony Blair had his sights on this.So definitely NO.

    • avatar

      The EU is very welcome to keep the liar Blair, we have no use for him :)

    • avatar

      Pls dont throw your garbage where it doesn’t belong 😊

  11. avatar
    Paul X

    Why not save the EU taxpayers a whole lot of cash and get rid of the commission and council completely, and just have a parliament of nationally elected members?

  12. avatar

    Η ελληνική είναι επίσημη γλώσσα της ΕΕ. Γράφω, λοιπόν, Ελληνικά. Όλα αυτά που γράφετε έχουν μια σημαντική προϋπόθεση,: ΤΗΝ ΠΟΛΙΤΙΚΉ ΕΝΟΠΟΊΗΣΗ ΤΗΣ ΕΥΡΩΠΗΣ!!!!!!!! , Πολύ βιαστικους σας βρίσκω.

  13. avatar

    Already decided. Lisbon Treaty, all member states signed up for it. 1-1-2009 , our leader PM Brown signed for us.

  14. avatar

    Всички там сте за бунището нищо не става от вас много простотии натворихте джендъри такива
    You’re all there for the dump. Nothing happens to you.

  15. avatar

    If the president is elected the term Union loses its significance. With newly elected president in the future a lot of difficult issues would be open like: EU army, Constitution, new treaties, common language, it is going to look like big state and not big family. It is sometimes more easy with president to be solved a lot of difficult issues but on the other hand the EU will lose credibility.

  16. avatar

    Since the end of the Second World War Germany has been plotting to run Europe Couldn’t do it in two world wars now doing in financially

    • avatar

      Evidence to back up such a wild claim?

    • avatar

      John I believe they were the instigators of two world wars in which they wanted to completely rule Europe Now financially they are trying to control Europe look at Greece for instance After the Second World War Greece wrote off the Debt Germany owed them . Last year the IMF wanted to give Greece Debt relief but Germany objected Too many other things to go into on this platform

    • avatar

      That has always been the problem of Germany. Too big to live a balance of power, too small to be a true hegemon of Europe. The union has until now been the best way to live with it because Germany can always be outvoted by the either nations.
      But Germany didn’t start ww1 if anyone did it was the Austro Hungarians. And the Russian and French were the ones that escalated the conflict by mobilizing for war.

  17. avatar

    While you are at it, why not have the same president with the US? Isn’t Mr Trump good enough for both? Haha!

  18. avatar

    Διαλυστε την και στηλέτε τους όλους σπίτι τους κηφήνες να εισαχασουμε.
    Break it up and send everyone home to the drones.

  19. avatar
    Rock The Revolutionary

    ……… The three aims of the tyrant. These are, (1) the humiliation of his subjects; he knows that a mean-spirited man will not conspire against anybody; (2) the creation of mistrust among them; for a tyrant is not overthrown until men begin to have confidence in one another; and this is the reason why tyrants are at war with the good; they are under the idea that their power is endangered by them, not only because they would not be ruled despotically but also because they are loyal to one another, and to other men, and do not inform against one another or against other men; (3) the tyrant desires that his subjects shall be incapable of action, for no one attempts what is impossible, and they will not attempt to overthrow a tyranny, if they are powerless. Under these three heads the whole policy of a tyrant may be summed up, and to one or other of them all his ideas may be referred: (1) he sows distrust among his subjects; (2) he takes away their power; (3) he humbles them. The rule of law is the principle that no one is exempt from the law, even those who are in a position of power. The rule of law can serve as a safeguard against tyranny, because just laws ensure that rulers do not become corrupt. Aristotle.Tutor of the 13-year-old , Alexander (the future Alexander the Great).

  20. avatar

    A lot of the problem lies in the word ‘President’ and how it is understood in English. The meaning of that word within the EU institutions is more akin to Director or Head or even Chair in English than to the normally understood meaning of President as the head of state of a country. French companies have a President where British or American companies have Directors or CEOs.

    Perhaps the Presidents of the European institutions should be called Head or Director instead. Having said that, each institution performs a different function. A single President could not perform the task of both head of the European civil service and head of the Council of EU governments. So it is nonsense to think there could be a single ‘President’ of the EU.

  21. avatar
    John Costigane

    A single, democratically elected President would have the popular mandate to act decisively in crises. The EU does not do decisive. This would be a first step towards a European Republic.

    There are a lot of naysayers with regard to the Republic idea, who were silent during the several most recent crises. Such situations would never arise since a single, elected President of sufficient merit could marshall resources more readily.

  22. avatar

    Should the EU reduce the number of its MEPs?
    Too many of them just warming their seats and only quitting them when the next election beckons!
    EU with BIG MOUTH Mogherini just braying BLAH, BLAH, BLAH during international encounters together with others less conspicuous, can you publish the annual costings of your oversized Parliament including the many fringe benefits accompanying them while thousands of EU citizens are left homeless, out on the streets and others below the poverty line?!!

  23. avatar

    United Kingdom soon be out of Europe.
    So it will not be your concern

  24. avatar
    EU Reform- Proactive

    No. Another relentless & fruitless hunt into something unrealistic.

    Cut back on concentrated political power which might end in a mega EU dictatorship with the consequential abolition of all national parliaments & identities!

    Europe only needs good intergovernmental relationships and one European set of Standards. Abolish & save the whole costly political razzmatazz!

    The world is used using its national diplomatic missions (why have them?), their Chancellors/PM’s and all have their telephone numbers at hand. Further- all meet at the UN etc. on a near daily basis anyway.

    One only needs the nations “will” not a “third party Agent” or Overlord to build a successful Europe!

    Within a growing Global Economy, the European interest can be better served through strengthening joint European Economic success through its relevant Forums and not political power grabs.

    • avatar


  25. avatar

    John: I don’t think that Juncker is all that bad, but then I think we should have European-wide elections for the most important positions.
    Getting into the ugly business of names, I could imagine someone like Martin Schulz, I like Macron a lot, you name it! We’ve got a lot of good people, too much to make “behind-closed-doors” deals!:S

  26. avatar

    Οταν δεν αποφασισατε ακομα σ αυτο εμεις αποχωρουμε
    When we’re not in it yet, we are.

  27. avatar
    catherine benning

    Who do YOU agree with on this issue?

    The single way for the EU to move forward politically is by adopting the full Swiss form of democracy. This includes the top echelon. Every single person across the entire continent would benefit in every way and have the power democracy is able to offer if properly organised.

    And here is a thinking discussion on how to follow their example.

    How it’s done on a local level.

    I love this Swiss Direct Democracy. And it’s the only way the people can have the power to stop ‘crazed deep state bureaucrats’ deciding on how the citizen will live and prosper. Then follow up by banning those same people from refusing their hidden agenda or to even debate it. How do they do that? By forcing them to accept what they are bribed to politically manipulate from lobbyists and interests outside their borders. As is taking place right across the European continent at present, including the UK.

    It returns the power of the people to have their wishes addressed.

  28. avatar

    Why I will never support United States of Europe:

    1)EU elites (heavy puppets of USA) seem to hate several nations inside Europe. especially Russia/Ukraine/Belarus. Even some countries like Poland and Hungary are looked down on.
    2)EU treats Slavic and Southern Europeans like lower humans.
    3)EU pretends to be democracy, but its not (who are you trying to fool?)
    4)EU has too many cultural, political, social and economic differences between the nations.
    5)EU runs like Politburo/Commie like. They have eliminated much of the Christian ideals. And they still attack those ideas more and more. They still push New Left nonsense, along with Neoliberalism and Neoconservative.
    7)EU ignores much of its origins. EU ignores its people. EU pretends to be tolerant but hates on non-liberal nations. EU joins in bombing nations.
    8)EU seems to hate Catholicism and Orthodox. Favoring Freemasonic/Liberal views. EU seems to absolutely hate traditionalism, family.

    Who the leader is for me is irrelevant. Because there are tons of groups involved. Pressure comes from foreign countries. Billionaires, banks have to much power.
    Northern, Southern, Central, Eastern, Western Europe are different from each other.
    Charlemagne would look at the EU and be disgusted.
    PS stop pretending the Russians are still Soviets. I see more Bolshevism in the EU.

    06/11/2018 Ana Maria Gomes, a Portuguese social democratic MEP, has responded to this comment.

    06/11/2018 Margot Parker, British MEP with the eurosceptic UK Independence Party (UKIP), has responded to this comment.

    06/11/2018 Pál Csáky, a Slovak centre-right MEP and member of the Hungarian minority in Slovakia, as well as former Deputy Prime Minister for European affairs, human rights and minorities, has responded to this comment.

    • avatar

      It doesn’t matter because Russia is not in the EU anyway…

    • avatar

      your right

    • avatar

      Please tell me how E.U. is the 4 th reich.

    • avatar

      Ask Germany!

    • avatar

      Dan was it not clear that Michail was making himself ridiculous?

  29. avatar

    You are still dealing with secondary issues. The main is “until when EU will be a servant of the Banks and the Markets and not servant of the citizens?”

  30. avatar

    No to German dictatorship. As things are the EU is already dominated by Germany.

  31. avatar

    I hope they will leave the eu too ,at the moment there isn’t a goverment .we might have to go and vote again .

  32. avatar

    NO… …. It is VERY important that ALL countries in the EU. have and take an active part in the decision making process.

    • avatar

      It’s not a matter of persons, it’s a matter of policy…

  33. avatar

    No. No way. At the end, you will make a president for the United States of Europe (USE).

  34. avatar

    The EU shows time and again it fails to make correct stances for its own ideals, but maintains pre-WWI politics like we see in the catalunya independance case. Imho, the EU forfaited its relevance and we need a new union to take its place

  35. avatar

    Presidentet simbolizojne unitetine kombeve.Ky unitet mungon ne E.U Keshtu qe te gjithe perfaqesojne presidentet e puneve te kota.Te gjithe jane nenurdherat e Gjermanise dhe te Merkelit.Evropa qe enderuan kombet e vropiane eshte fshehur diku larg !?

    The Presidents of the world. This unity is missing in the the. So we all get the presidents of stupid jobs. They’re all Germany’s and Merkel’s. Europe that enderuan the nations of vropiane is hiding somewhere far away!?

  36. avatar

    Αποφασιστε επι τέλους,τι το πιλατευετε τόσο καιρό?
    Finally, what have you been doing so long?

  37. avatar

    Absolutely yes. It’s the only that Europe ( and Europeans) with have a powerful voice on the world stage.

  38. avatar

    Yes . Under one term . To be a real leader of Europeans and not a puppet of money owners. To protect small countries fro the manipulation of the big ones . Right now there are penalties for the countries that have deficites and there are not for those they have more surplaces.

  39. avatar

    Elected directly by the European citizens in the 27 member-states?

  40. avatar

    I didn’t really like the way this debate has turned; everyone telling half the truth from his perspective. If one argues that the UK government isn’t democraticaly elected, then we must have Red alert in Brussels!!:S
    I think it’s not correct to call the UK system a two-party system, because it just isn’t. If the majority of people stick with one of the major parties that isn’t all wrong.
    Anyway, Ivan might be just a part of a Russian hidden government agenda obscured by lies about western conspiracies!! So good!!:D

  41. avatar

    I thought there already was one. But I agree, unless there is political and fiscal union, there is not much point in such a proposal.

    • avatar

      Sorry for your background, it must have been an horror to have Hitler as president,
      Fortunately this has not happened to the Hispanics peoples.

  42. avatar
    Dave R

    Juncker was not elected, he was the appointed commissioner for Luxembourg, who, along with the other unelected commissioners could have been chosen by the “Spitzenkandidat” system to be the commission president out of the unelected 28.

    That is not democracy. Democracy is when a candidate for an office stands before the people and is voted for my the majority of the people – note: the people, not appointed by a government and not at the top of a list of the largest political grouping in the european parliament – (EPP).

    IF there ever was to be a single president, then he/she must be elected by the people directly. This will never happen, for obvious reasons.

  43. avatar
    Tarquin Farquhar

    The UK is the 1st/2nd biggest net EU contributor IF you take note of:

    the monies the UK loses because we give our fish away to the EU for free,

    the ‘EU infrastructure projects’ that are dominated by Germany and France and that effectively give EU money to these so-called net EU contributors

    the undemocratic apportionment of EU institutions and the jobs direct and otherwise that prop up the economies of France, Netherlands, Luxembourg and more.

  44. avatar
    Trond Davidsen

    The EU is growing into a communist tyranni. There are no construction to protect the people from the government. The urge for a «strong leader» is going down the old nazist bolsjevic Dictator road. Scary. Utterly bizarre and disturbing. Happy my country ( Norway ) is not a full member. We can spot nazist from miles away. And the EU are getting more Third Rich than Hitlers Germany. Spooky.

  45. avatar
    Bert van Santen

    A President suggest the EU is one country, which it absolutely NOT is. So why one President?

  46. avatar

    Should have single European parties first, instead of these lose conglomerates of national parties.

    • avatar

      You already have one, pro EU MEP’s claim to be either the left or right but in reality they are all the same thing. A return to a one party State is waiting for you, good luck.

    • avatar

      Did you vote for him ?

    • avatar

      Ivan Burrows yes!

    • avatar

      Ivan Burrows He is all what EU need for the next 20 years! He is the most loved man in EU. If the Karl Marx would be alive ,I am sure, he should liked to works under JUNCKER strict coordonation as European citizen! 😉😉😉 Hura Hura!

  47. avatar

    Never.. national parliaments and governments should never lose their power…the existence of nation-states and welfare state is fundamental for the existence of Democracy in Europe..

  48. avatar

    Yes, of course. Best case: A parliament elected by the people of Europe (check) who then elect a president. We need more democracy inside the EU structures, so the people come to focus on more important tasks we are up to as Europeans. #strengthenParliament #USE

    • avatar

      More democracy by forcing an unwanted and unasked for European Government onto 500 million people ?, you have a very strange interpretation of democracy. The first thing you should do is ask the ‘people’ if they want a European Politburo and its rubber stamping European Parliament, if they say yes then you can claim to be semi-democratic otherwise it’s just another European dictatorship.

  49. avatar

    No but you will & Karl Marx apologist Juncker is just the man for you. You deserve everything you get.

    You have learnt nothing from your history and you are destined to repeat it. Thank god we are leaving before the brown stuff really hits the fan. :)

  50. avatar

    Never in a million years. Basically cause nobody feels European and that says it all

  51. avatar
    Franz M

    Europe should not have a council in the first place. Or at least a qualified majority should be enough in reality not only de jure.

  52. avatar

    yes, but please, not the kind like “Donald” or “Vladi” and so on

  53. avatar

    More presidents – more fun, please dont scale down, EU deserves more diversity.

  54. avatar

    And if those stupid Americans dont know the telephone number, let them use Skype or twitter.

    • avatar

      But everyone knows Angela Merkel’s number ?

  55. avatar

    oi kto okolo vas nezabivaite gospoda ,,, Venni nenado ,,, granici na zamke hungari i td ,,,,

  56. avatar

    it will be more or less a good idea

  57. avatar
    Lyubomir Ivanchev

    “If democratic institutions are too confusing for most people to follow, are they still democratic?” That’s a very good question. And the answer is “No”. They are not democratic, they are bureaucratic. In our case – eurobureaucratic (or eurocratic for short). The EU needs to reform and have less bureaucracy, not more. You can’t fix having too much bureaucracy by creating even more bureaucracy. One President – yes, sure, but not one MORE president on top of all the others. First we need to reform the EU institutions, remove all the unnecessary useless presidents, chairmans and commitees, create a clear and lean hierarchical structure that leaves only the Parliament, Commission and Court and THEN create a single President position that is directly elected by the Europeans to represent the EU.

  58. avatar

    Yes,but elected directly by us,citizens, not by parties.

  59. avatar

    Sure there is no head of state post so far from what I see. Comparing to the German system. You have the Bundespräsident which is the head of state, the chancellor who leads the government(Junckers job), the Bundestagspräsident (Tajani’s counterpart) who is head of the parliament and the Bundesratspräsident (tusk s job)who is head of our mini version of the EU council. Neither of them is elected directly.

  60. avatar

    Does EU have multiple European Presidents now? 🤔🤣
    Or did you just call for all member states to relinquish their president-powers to EU’s plutocracy…

    • avatar

      they do. There is a dual executive, one being the Commission and it’s president (currently Juncker) and the other being the European Council headed by a separate president (currently Tusk)

  61. avatar

    good point!
    But non of them are an “European President”, just “heads” of different institutions.
    If they close/end the European Commission, it’s a different story.

  62. avatar

    No, let’s keep the division of power that has evolved over the years. I don’t think more power to one single person will unite Europe, but rather the opposite. The germans would vote for a german, the scandinavians for a swede and so on. It would divide us.

    Maybe the current system, evolved over time, is the best for us. There is room for improvement, but we can make it work.

    • avatar

      A president would be only a representative role anyways. The commision is like the government, so the exekutive powers would stay with the president of the commision. It would separate powers even further if there was a president. He could veto certain decisions bye not signing them. Another further level of checks and balances

  63. avatar

    I like division of power. The last thing we need is more concentration of power in a single individual.

  64. avatar

    yes, directly electable by popular vote.

  65. avatar

    Elected by the people. And someone, not Druncker

  66. avatar

    No, power separation is very important

  67. avatar

    So long as He/She speaks English and doesn’t have a drink problem and is Christian.

    • avatar
      alec stanton

      Why would you care if they drink alchohoul?

  68. avatar

    Why not an Unholy European President….lol.

  69. avatar

    The EU must in general move towards a deeper inegration, starting with a single economic policy (common minister of finance) and a common defence policy.

  70. avatar

    ЕU …….became very parasitic and destructive organisation on the taxpayers shoulders .

  71. avatar

    YES, I think Putin would be a good one.

  72. avatar

    A single and elected by unilateral vote

Your email will not be published

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Notify me of new comments. You can also subscribe without commenting.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

More debate series – ME&EU View all

By continuing to use this website, you consent to the use of cookies on your device as described in our Privacy Policy unless you have disabled them. You can change your cookie settings at any time but parts of our site will not function correctly without them.