The Daily Telegraph doesn't understand how the EU works
Today the Daily Telegraph, in its role as the primary mouthpiece of British Nationalism, published a vindictive piece that in its self-confidence exposed how little they themselves know. The article, though short, is riddled with errors, with barely a sentence correct, and exposes the editorial line of the paper as shockingly ignorant about the basics of how the EU works.
The worst part is that it is written in a tone that suggests the authors believe they have found some great 'gotcha' moment, that they have created something that will fundamentally undermine the beliefs of those who are pro-EU.
Take this line for example: 'Does every Remainer understand that this post isn’t even directly elected?' For myself, yes I absolutely do realise that and so what? You want examples of democratic systems where the leaders aren't directly elected? Try every parliamentary democracy in the world. For what it's worth, it's refreshing to hear the Daily Telegraph refer to the Commission as being elected at all. Having spent all the recent years referring to the Commission as 'unelected', spreading disinformation to British citizens, if they could now officially recognise this correction of their own lies, it would be a small step for the paper back to a place of respectability.
And what about the sentence that follows: 'That his or her name must have the support of a large majority of EU leaders and only then is put to the EU parliament?' Yes, I know, this is apparently supposed to be a shocking revelation. Why? It's beyond me. The argument the Daily Telegraph is trying to push here is that the European Commission President has to be approved by the national governments and a majority in the European Parliament. That would be the democratically elected national governments and the democratically elected Parliament. And the paper very confidently presents this as evidence of a lack of democracy within the European Union. But before we dismiss this entirely as the work of someone who has failed to link up one thought with the next, let's give it a chance and take it at face value. After all, I've heard similar criticism of the system for selecting the Commission President before. There are others who also agree that the national governments should not be involved in the process, that candidates for Commission President should be drawn exclusively from the Parliament and that only the Parliament should elect this position. But, then again, if the Daily Telegraph was going to convert to European federalism, wouldn't it have made sense to put out a more official announcement?
Onto, again, literally the next sentence: 'Or that Manfred Weber, the candidate whose party got the most seats in the recent European elections (a man who almost no UK Remainer has ever heard of), has been discounted for lack of experience?' This is true, Weber has been discounted because he's a bad candidate. The other party groups in the European Parliament simply won't work with him. And this is the big difference compared to 2014. See in 2014, the national governments didn't really want the European Parliament to have a big say on electing the Commission President back then either. A position that many argue is disrespectful of the Parliament and the voice of European citizens in the European elections (though, again, if the Daily Telegraph could officially confirm that it is now repudiating David Cameron's own position on the matter, which was to keep the decision in the control of national governments, that would be helpful). So to impose its will, the European Parliament formed a majority soon after the elections in favour of the candidate of the largest group (the EPP's Jean-Claude Juncker). They told the national governments that this was the only candidate they would approve. It was an institutional fight that the Parliament won without question. Fast forward to 2019 and the situation is very different. Manfred Weber has none of Juncker's experience and is widely unpopular with the other parliamentary groups. Very simply, the EPP picked a bad candidate. Yes, they won the most seats but this is a proportional system. Coming first does not give you a majority. And if no one else wants to work with you then you do not have some preordained right to all the top posts - only those who can form a majority in the Parliament get that reward. So, if the national governments are getting more of a say this time on choosing the Commission President (and they are), it's only because the Parliament is divided. It is this, not a natural power of the national governments over the Parliament in this process, that has led to Weber being so easily discounted. Something that would be obvious to anyone who not only had more than a superficial understanding of the institutional and legal arrangement at work here but who also understood the political dynamics between the different ideological groups in the European Parliament.
With these three questions presented (and with us none the wiser as to why the authors consider them strokes of great insight or wisdom), we are now expected to simply automatically realise that this 'all sounds less than democratic', a statement that has in no way been proven at any stage of the argument. We are told that power actually lies with a 'self-selecting political class'. As a quick reminder, the people the Daily Telegraph are referring to here are the national governments of the EU Member States. They are no more 'self-selecting' than any other democratic government anywhere in the world. Some might think whoever wrote this piece was just throwing in populist buzzwords without much consideration for accuracy (seemingly in the belief that the paper's readers are simply too stupid to know better).
The piece then follows up with: 'It’s a constitutional framework drafted by politicians who didn’t trust their own populations.' I feel like I'm labouring the point here, but need I remind everyone that the Daily Telegraph is exactly one the of standard bearers of Euroscepticism that railed against each and every attempt to give the European Parliament more power? To now turn around and say that national governments have too much power is the height of hypocrisy.
Next: 'It is a million miles from the British system, where the government is formed from MPs elected directly by the people.' I thought people would have known this but apparently we need to clear something up: the EU is not a state, the Commission is not a government. If any branch of the EU resembles a government, it is the Council, the assembly of the governments of the Member States. And even if you want to push this argument, I'd bring you back to the point about 2014 - the Parliament is absolutely relevant in the selection of the European Commission President and can even (when it is united) impose its will against the national governments. The idea it can simply be ignored is completely false. If the Parliament does not like the candidate the national governments decide upon then they can and will reject it (which is why the national governments will very likely only present a candidate they already know could win the support of the Parliament - precisely what Donald Tusk, President of the Council, has been trying to sound out in his various meetings with the leaders of the European Parliament groups).
The rest of that sentence then finishes with: 'the voters understand who is in charge and the limits of their power'. Voters in the UK have very little understanding of what the limits on power are. Indeed the average voter would likely be shocked at how few limits there are for a government that holds a healthy majority in the UK Parliament. To pretend otherwise is pure partisanship.
Finally, with one last flourish of arrogance, the Daily Telegraph piece proclaims that the failings of the EU have become apparent to 'anyone paying attention'. If this is what passes for 'paying attention' in the offices of the Daily Telegraph then that certainly explains the past quality of their reporting on the EU.
The worst part is that it is written in a tone that suggests the authors believe they have found some great 'gotcha' moment, that they have created something that will fundamentally undermine the beliefs of those who are pro-EU.
Take this line for example: 'Does every Remainer understand that this post isn’t even directly elected?' For myself, yes I absolutely do realise that and so what? You want examples of democratic systems where the leaders aren't directly elected? Try every parliamentary democracy in the world. For what it's worth, it's refreshing to hear the Daily Telegraph refer to the Commission as being elected at all. Having spent all the recent years referring to the Commission as 'unelected', spreading disinformation to British citizens, if they could now officially recognise this correction of their own lies, it would be a small step for the paper back to a place of respectability.
And what about the sentence that follows: 'That his or her name must have the support of a large majority of EU leaders and only then is put to the EU parliament?' Yes, I know, this is apparently supposed to be a shocking revelation. Why? It's beyond me. The argument the Daily Telegraph is trying to push here is that the European Commission President has to be approved by the national governments and a majority in the European Parliament. That would be the democratically elected national governments and the democratically elected Parliament. And the paper very confidently presents this as evidence of a lack of democracy within the European Union. But before we dismiss this entirely as the work of someone who has failed to link up one thought with the next, let's give it a chance and take it at face value. After all, I've heard similar criticism of the system for selecting the Commission President before. There are others who also agree that the national governments should not be involved in the process, that candidates for Commission President should be drawn exclusively from the Parliament and that only the Parliament should elect this position. But, then again, if the Daily Telegraph was going to convert to European federalism, wouldn't it have made sense to put out a more official announcement?
Onto, again, literally the next sentence: 'Or that Manfred Weber, the candidate whose party got the most seats in the recent European elections (a man who almost no UK Remainer has ever heard of), has been discounted for lack of experience?' This is true, Weber has been discounted because he's a bad candidate. The other party groups in the European Parliament simply won't work with him. And this is the big difference compared to 2014. See in 2014, the national governments didn't really want the European Parliament to have a big say on electing the Commission President back then either. A position that many argue is disrespectful of the Parliament and the voice of European citizens in the European elections (though, again, if the Daily Telegraph could officially confirm that it is now repudiating David Cameron's own position on the matter, which was to keep the decision in the control of national governments, that would be helpful). So to impose its will, the European Parliament formed a majority soon after the elections in favour of the candidate of the largest group (the EPP's Jean-Claude Juncker). They told the national governments that this was the only candidate they would approve. It was an institutional fight that the Parliament won without question. Fast forward to 2019 and the situation is very different. Manfred Weber has none of Juncker's experience and is widely unpopular with the other parliamentary groups. Very simply, the EPP picked a bad candidate. Yes, they won the most seats but this is a proportional system. Coming first does not give you a majority. And if no one else wants to work with you then you do not have some preordained right to all the top posts - only those who can form a majority in the Parliament get that reward. So, if the national governments are getting more of a say this time on choosing the Commission President (and they are), it's only because the Parliament is divided. It is this, not a natural power of the national governments over the Parliament in this process, that has led to Weber being so easily discounted. Something that would be obvious to anyone who not only had more than a superficial understanding of the institutional and legal arrangement at work here but who also understood the political dynamics between the different ideological groups in the European Parliament.
With these three questions presented (and with us none the wiser as to why the authors consider them strokes of great insight or wisdom), we are now expected to simply automatically realise that this 'all sounds less than democratic', a statement that has in no way been proven at any stage of the argument. We are told that power actually lies with a 'self-selecting political class'. As a quick reminder, the people the Daily Telegraph are referring to here are the national governments of the EU Member States. They are no more 'self-selecting' than any other democratic government anywhere in the world. Some might think whoever wrote this piece was just throwing in populist buzzwords without much consideration for accuracy (seemingly in the belief that the paper's readers are simply too stupid to know better).
The piece then follows up with: 'It’s a constitutional framework drafted by politicians who didn’t trust their own populations.' I feel like I'm labouring the point here, but need I remind everyone that the Daily Telegraph is exactly one the of standard bearers of Euroscepticism that railed against each and every attempt to give the European Parliament more power? To now turn around and say that national governments have too much power is the height of hypocrisy.
Next: 'It is a million miles from the British system, where the government is formed from MPs elected directly by the people.' I thought people would have known this but apparently we need to clear something up: the EU is not a state, the Commission is not a government. If any branch of the EU resembles a government, it is the Council, the assembly of the governments of the Member States. And even if you want to push this argument, I'd bring you back to the point about 2014 - the Parliament is absolutely relevant in the selection of the European Commission President and can even (when it is united) impose its will against the national governments. The idea it can simply be ignored is completely false. If the Parliament does not like the candidate the national governments decide upon then they can and will reject it (which is why the national governments will very likely only present a candidate they already know could win the support of the Parliament - precisely what Donald Tusk, President of the Council, has been trying to sound out in his various meetings with the leaders of the European Parliament groups).
The rest of that sentence then finishes with: 'the voters understand who is in charge and the limits of their power'. Voters in the UK have very little understanding of what the limits on power are. Indeed the average voter would likely be shocked at how few limits there are for a government that holds a healthy majority in the UK Parliament. To pretend otherwise is pure partisanship.
Finally, with one last flourish of arrogance, the Daily Telegraph piece proclaims that the failings of the EU have become apparent to 'anyone paying attention'. If this is what passes for 'paying attention' in the offices of the Daily Telegraph then that certainly explains the past quality of their reporting on the EU.
Comments
Post a Comment